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

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          1,310,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   7,297,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (375,000)
<INVENTORY>                                     1,997,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,756,000
<PP&E>                                          4,475,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (94,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 48,228,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           7,762,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                       47,580,000
<OTHER-SE>                                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   48,228,000
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                3,111,000
<CGS>                                           2,221,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                8,421,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  8,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,539,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,539,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,539,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (8.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (8.13)


</TABLE>
### §4303. Preparation and contents of statement of appropriations

The statement of all appropriations made during each session of Congress shall be prepared under the direction of the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives, and said statement shall contain a chronological history of the regular appropriation bills passed during the session for which it is prepared. The statement shall indicate the amount of contracts authorized by appropriation Acts in addition to appropriations made therein, and shall also contain specific reference to all indefinite appropriations made each session and shall contain such additional information concerning estimates and appropriations as the committees may deem necessary.

(Oct. 19, 1888, ch. 1210, §1, 25 Stat. 587; July 19, 1897, ch. 9, 30 Stat. 136; June 7, 1924, ch. 303, §1, 43 Stat. 586.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 105 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
### §60c–2a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 60c–2a was editorially reclassified as section 6568 of this title.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-148 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, October 7, 1997)

NRC STAFF ISSUES DEMAND FOR INFORMATION

TO SIERRA NUCLEAR CORPORATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a Demand for Information

to Sierra Nuclear Corporation asking why NRC should not prohibit the company from

fabricating its VSC-24 dry storage cask for spent nuclear fuel.

The VSC-24 cask system is currently used to store spent fuel at the Arkansas

Nuclear One facility near Russellville, Arkansas; the Palisades nuclear power plant near

South Haven, Michigan; and the Point Beach nuclear power plant near Manitowoc,

Wisconsin.

Sierra Nuclear holds an NRC certificate approving the use of the VSC-24. NRC

conducts inspections to determine whether the system is being manufactured in

accordance with the NRC-certified design.

The Demand for Information was issued as a result of numerous NRC inspection

findings indicating that, since 1992, Sierra Nuclear’s quality assurance and corrective

action programs have failed to identify and correct design control and fabrication

deficiencies.

Because of the broad scope of these problems, NRC questions whether it can

maintain confidence in the company’s ability to control the design and to fabricate the

VSC-24 in a manner that meets agency regulations. NRC believes it may be

appropriate to consider significant enforcement action until these weaknesses are

corrected.

NRC therefore has asked Sierra Nuclear to submit:

-- A statement as to why the NRC should not issue an order to require an

independent entity to conduct a comprehensive review of Sierra Nuclear’s quality

assurance and corrective action programs to (1) determine if the VSC-24 design, as

approved by the NRC, was adequately controlled and fabricated to meet the terms and

conditions of the certificate of compliance and conforms to the safety analysis report
and safety evaluation report for the cask; and (2) identify deficiencies associated with

the programs and determine what actions should be taken to correct existing problems

and ensure that, in the future, Sierra Nuclear’s quality assurance and corrective action

programs will be properly implemented.

-- A statement by Sierra Nuclear as to why NRC should not suspend all actions

associated with Sierra Nuclear application and amendment requests until the problems

have been resolved to the Commission’s satisfaction.

-- A statement by Sierra Nuclear as to why NRC should not issue an order to

suspend Sierra Nuclear’s authority to fabricate the VSC-24 until problems have been

resolved to the Commission’s satisfaction.

Sierra Nuclear has 30 days to respond by providing the requested information or

indicating why it thinks the Demand for Information should not have been issued. After

reviewing the company’s response, NRC will determine whether further action is

necessary.

A copy of the Demand for Information will be available via the NRC website at

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports/cask.htm.

###
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.463 Transit and transshipment. ( a ) *General.* A good will not be considered an originating good by reason of having undergone production that occurs entirely in the territory of Chile, the United States, or both, that would enable the good to qualify as an originating good if subsequent to that production the good undergoes further production or any other operation outside the territories of Chile and the United States, other than unloading, reloading, or any other process necessary to preserve the good in good condition or to transport the good to the territory of Chile or the United States.
( b ) *Documentary evidence.* An importer making a claim that a good is originating may be required to demonstrate, to CBP's satisfaction, that no further production or subsequent operation, other than permitted under paragraph (a) of this section, occurred outside the territories of Chile or the United States. An importer may demonstrate compliance with this section by submitting documentary evidence. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, bills of lading, packing lists, commercial invoices, and customs entry and exit documents.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-23159-CIV-CANNON/Otazo-Reyes

IKSA EXIM, INC., a Florida Corporation, 

and IZHAK KASHANI, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LAWRENCE ALLOUCHE, 

a/k/a Larry Allouche,

a/k/a Larry Alush, and ARIEL LLC,

a Pennsylvania limited liability company,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On February

14, 2021, the Court ordered Defendant Ariel LLC to retain counsel permitted to practice before 

the Court and notify the Court of such [ECF No. 25]. The deadline to comply with that order was 

February 25, 2021. To date, Defendant Ariel LLC has failed to retain counsel permitted to 

practice before the Court, as required by the order. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that on or before March 8, 2021, Defendant Ariel LLC 

shall SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING why Defendant Ariel LLC has not retained counsel. Failure 

to do so will result in the Court instructing the Clerk of Court to enter default against Defendant 

Ariel LLC. See Compania Interamericana Export-Import, S.A., v. Compania Dominicana de 

Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948, 951-52 (11th Cir.1996) (upholding a district court’s decision to default a 

corporation for failure to obtain counsel); Tumi v. Wally’s Waterfront, Inc., No. 

205CV551FTM29SPC, 2007 WL 678013, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (finding entry of default 

Case 1:20-cv-23159-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2021 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 20-23159-CIV-CANNON/Otazo-Reyes

2

judgment appropriate after corporate defendant failed to obtain counsel as directed by court).

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Pierce, Florida, this 2nd day of March 2021.

 __________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-23159-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2021 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23276-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES

UNISOURCE DISCOVERY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNISOURCE DISCOVERY, LLC 

and STEVEN A. CERASALE,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s 

Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 250] regarding Plaintiff Unisource 

Discovery, Inc.’s Ex Parte Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 

139]. On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants Unisource Discovery, 

LLC and Steven A. Cerasale. [ECF No. 1]. On November 1, 2020, the Court referred this matter 

to Judge Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial, 

non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 20]. 

On July 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion seeking to enjoin Defendants “for unlawful use 

and trading on Plaintiff’s well-known registered ‘Unisource’ Trademark.” [ECF No. 139]. On 

January 10, 2022, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report recommending that the Court deny 

Plaintiff’s Motion. [ECF No. 250]. Plaintiff timely filed its Objections, [ECF No. 267], to which 

Defendants filed a Response, [ECF No. 277], and Plaintiff filed a Reply, [ECF No. 283].

Case 1:20-cv-23276-DPG Document 288 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/25/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which 

objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings 

that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific 

objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint 

Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 

208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

Having conducted a de novo review of the Motion, Objections, and record, the Court agrees 

with Judge Otazo-Reyes’s well-reasoned analysis and recommendation that Plaintiff’s Motion 

should be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 

250], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by 

reference.

2. Plaintiff Unisource Discovery, Inc.’s Ex Parte Amended Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction, [ECF No. 139], is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 25th day of February, 2022.

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-23276-DPG Document 288 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/25/2022 Page 2 of 2
NUMBER 13

- 1 4

- 00 482

- CR



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

STEPHEN FORREST MILL ER

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 148 th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Ga rza and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Stephen Forrest Miller

, filed a letter with the Court on August 19 , 2014

which was interpreted as a notice of appeal. On September 8, 2014 appellant filed a

letter explaining that he did not intend to file a notice of appeal but was merely filing a

letter of inquiry. We construe appellant’ s letter as a motion to dismiss the appeal. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we GRANT the2

motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and DISMISS

the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing

will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the

9th day of October, 2014

.
#### § 113.130 Effect of employment opportunities.

The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated because employment opportunities in any occupation or profession are or may be more limited for members of one sex than for members of the other sex.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

RODNEY JOSEPH, Jr.,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 14

- 10377

D.C. No. 1:06

- cr

- 00080

- SOM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 22, 2015 **

Before: HAWKINS

, GRABER , and W. FLETCHER , Circuit Judges.

Rodney Joseph, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’ s order denying his

request to “not join” in his co

- defendant ’s withdrawal of his motions for a new trial.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Joseph argues that the district court erred by treating his join d er in his

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 26 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 10377

co

- defendant ’s motion s for a new trial as withdrawn upon his co

- defendant’s

withdrawal of the motions

. T he district court treated Joseph’s joinder as withdraw n

under District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.9 , which states: “ Unless otherwise ordered by

the court, whenever an underlying motion is withdraw n , any joinder s are also treated

as withdrawn .” We review the district court ’ s application of its local rules for

abuse of discretion

. S

ee United States v. Heller , 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir.

2009) . C ontrary to Joseph’s contention

, the district court did not abuse its

discretion by treating his joinder as withdrawn

. S ee id. ( o nly in rare cases will this

court question the district court ’ s exercise of discretion in applying local rules )

.

AFFIRMED.
§ 302.3 Project servicing for loans, loan guaranties and Investment Assistance. EDA will provide Project servicing to borrowers who received EDA loans or EDA-guaranteed loans and to lenders who received EDA loan guaranties under an EDA-administered program. Project servicing includes loans made under PWEDA prior to the effective date of the Economic Development Administration Reform Act of 1998, the Trade Act, and the Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-31; 42 U.S.C. 5184 note). ( a ) EDA will continue to monitor such loans and loan guaranties in accordance with the applicable loans or loan guaranty program(s).
( b ) Borrowers and lenders shall submit to EDA any requests for modifications of their loan or loan guaranty agreements with EDA, as applicable. EDA shall consider and respond to such modification requests in accordance with applicable laws and policies, including the budgetary constraints imposed by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended (2 U.S.C. 661c(e)).
( c ) In the event that EDA determines it necessary or desirable to take actions to protect or further the interests of EDA in connection with loans, loan guaranties or evidence of purchased debt, EDA may: ( 1 ) Assign or sell at public or private sale or otherwise dispose of for cash or credit, in its discretion and upon such terms and conditions as it shall determine to be reasonable, any evidence of debt, contract, claim, personal or real property, or security assigned to or held by it in connection with any EDA loans, EDA-guaranteed loans or Investment Assistance extended under PWEDA;
( 2 ) Collect or compromise all obligations assigned to or held by it in connection with any EDA loans, EDA-guaranteed loans or Investment Assistance awarded under PWEDA until such time as such obligations may be referred to the Attorney General of the United States for suit or collection; and
( 3 ) Take any and all other actions determined to be necessary or desirable in purchasing, servicing, compromising, modifying, liquidating, or otherwise administratively processing or disposing of loans or loan guaranties made or evidence of purchased debt in connection with any EDA loans, EDA-guaranteed loans or Investment Assistance awarded under PWEDA.
[71 FR 56675, Sept. 27, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 76128, Dec. 19, 2014]
#### § 123.27 Feeding and watering animals in Canada.

If animals in sealed conveyances or compartments cannot be fed and watered in Canada without breaking customs seals, the seals shall be broken and the animals fed and watered under the supervision of a United States or Canadian Customs officer. The supervising officer shall reseal the conveyance or compartment, and make notation as to the resealing on the manifest.
CERTIFICATION OF CEO
               PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Anthony Paterra as CEO of Diasense, Inc., (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
       the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report)
       fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
       15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
       or 78o(d); and

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


                                        /s/ Anthony Paterra
                                        Anthony Paterra, CEO

                                        January 7, 2005
M INUTE O RDER Page10

M agistrate Judge Lauren F.Louis

AtkinsBuildingcourthouse-11thFloor Date:9/4/20 Time:1:00p.m.

Defendant: (lllonathanDavidGrenon J#:73681-018 Case#: 20-3050-MJ-OTAZO-REYES

AUSA: M ichaelHom er Attorney:

violation:CONSPTODEFRAUDTHEU.S.ANDT0DELIVER Surr/ArrestDate:9/3/2020 YOB:1985

MISBRANDED DRUGS

Proceeding: InitialAppearance CJA Appt:

Bond/PTDHeld:C Yes t-No RecommendedBond:

Nr surenderand/ordonotobtainpasports/traveldocs

s ReporttoPTSasdirected/or x'saweek/monthby Disposition:

phone: x'saweek/monthinperson . .

Random urinetestingbyPretrial

f-- s charges

ervices

Treatmentasdeemednecessary

1- Refrainfrom excessiveuseofalcohol Defendantstoodmute.Defendant

1- Participateinmentalhealthassessment& treatment proceeded ProseintheM iddle

1- Maintainorseekful-timeemployment/education District.TheInitialAppearance,

C Nocontactwithvictims/witnesses,exceptthroughcounsel PreliminaryhearingandDetention

f- Nofirearm s hearingw asheld in the M iddle District

1- N ofFlorida. ottoencumberproperty

1- M aynotvisittransportationestablishm ents

1- Homeconfinement/ElectronicMonitoringand/or

Curfew pm to am,paidby

C Allow ances:M edicalneeds,courtappearances,attorneyvisits,

religious,em ployment

1- Travelextendedto: Ti

m efrom todayto excluded

C Other: from SpeedyTrialClock

Language: English

NEXTCOURTAPPEARANCE Date: Time: Judge: Place:

ReportRECounseI:

PTD/BondHearing:

Arruignment: 1/8/2021 1:30p.m. - M iaml/Duty

StatusConferenceRE:

D.A.R.14'.17:22/LFL 019.4.2020zoom TimeinCourt: 15mins

s/LaurenF.Louis MagistrateJudge

Case 1:20-mj-03050-AOR Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 1 of 1
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

61 Forsyth Street SW

Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-17 April 19, 2000

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE APRIL 25

WITH DUKE POWER TO DISCUSS REGULATORY SAFETY CONCERNS AT OCONEE

MEETING IS OPEN TO OBSERVATION BY THE PUBLIC

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a predecisional enforcement conference with

officials of Duke Energy Company in Atlanta on Tuesday, April 25, at 8:00 a.m. (EDT) to discuss

regulatory safety questions the agency has concerning emergency feedwater systems at the three-unit

Oconee nuclear power plant, located near Seneca, South Carolina.

The meeting will be held in the NRC offices located on the 24th floor of the Sam Nunn Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW. It will be open to observation by interested members of the public and

news media representatives. NRC officials will be available at its conclusion to answer questions from

observers who attend.

NRC officials said the conference is being held to discuss seven apparent violations involving

potential loss of suction water sources and potential single action failures in the emergency feedwater

systems at the three-reactor plant. The apparent violations also involve what the NRC believes to be

inadequate corrective action, reporting, and safety evaluations for changes to the systems and their

applicable design criteria. Emergency feedwater systems at Oconee are used to supply water to the

secondary cooling systems in each unit’s steam generators to provide a means to remove heat during

an interruption of normal feedwater supply during an emergency.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that a determination

has been made that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. The purpose is to

discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance, to provide the licensee with an

opportunity to point out errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report and to enable the

company to outline its proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action, such as a civil

penalty, will be made at the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later time.

#