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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1997
<CASH>                                             319
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                       179
<INVENTORY>                                     27,804
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,528
<PP&E>                                          26,553
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,977
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,797
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,916
<SALES>                                        156,995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               156,995
<CGS>                                          133,371
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,371
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,964
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,137
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,917
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,620
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,620
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
        

</TABLE>
#### Paul Virgil BAUDIZZON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Mike MADDENING; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 00-55706.

D.C. No. CV-99-07134-ABC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2002*.

Decided May 22, 2002.

Before LAY**, CANBY and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM***

Paul Virgil Baudizzon appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. He argues that the one-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AED-PA”), 110 Stat. 1214, should have been equitably tolled because the clerk at the California court of appeal misinformed his attorney of the date on which the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review of the court of appeal’s decision. His attorney relied on the information provided by the clerk and miscalculated the expiration of the statute of limitations period. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on statute-of-limitations grounds. *Patterson v. Stewart,*251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.2001).

AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling if there are “extraordinary circumstances” beyond the petitioner’s control. *Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Kelly),*163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc). Attorney negligence, such as the miscalculation of AEDPA’s limitations period, does not constitute “extraordinary circumstances” warranting equitable tolling. *See Frye v. Hickman,*273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. *5852001). Petitioner’s attorney’s reliance on the clerk at the California Court of Appeal for the date on which the California Supreme Court denied review constituted negligence that does not rise to the level of “extraordinary circumstances” warranting equitable tolling of AEDPA’s statute of limitations.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
460 P.2d 261

#### Wendell HENRY and Debbie Gail Henry, Petitioners, v. Honorable E. Forrest SANDERS, Judge of the District Court of Otero County, New Mexico, Respondent.

No. 8941.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Nov. 4, 1969.

MOISE, COMPTON, TACKETT and WATSON, Justices, concurring; NOBLE, Chief Justice, being absent and not participating.

Ordered that petition for writ of prohibition be and the same is hereby denied.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65142-65143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27462]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-222-2018]


Foreign-Trade Zone 163--Ponce, Puerto Rico; Application for 
Subzone; Puerto Rico Steel Products Corporation; Coto Laurel, Puerto 
Rico

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting subzone 
status for the facility of Puerto Rico Steel Products Corporation, 
located in Coto Laurel, Puerto Rico. The application was submitted 
pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as

[[Page 65143]]

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR 
part 400). It was formally docketed on December 14, 2018.
    The proposed subzone (14.57 acres) is located at 1011 Corral Falso 
Km. 1.2 in Coto Laurel, Puerto Rico. No authorization for production 
activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be 
subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 163.
    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the 
FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make 
recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address 
below. The closing period for their receipt is January 28, 2019. 
Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period 
to February 12, 2019.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 
Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the ``Reading Room'' section of the 
Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Camille Evans at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d89bb9b5b1b4b4bdf69daeb9b6ab98acaab9bcbdf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1655777b7f7a7a7338536077786556626477727338717960">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-2350.

    Dated: December 14, 2018.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27462 Filed 12-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
| Legal Name                                               |   | Place of Incorporation |   | Doing Business As        |   | Ownership %1 |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|--------|
|                                                          |   |                             |   |                               |   |              |   |
| Lan Argentina S.A.                                            |   | Argentina                        |   | Lan Argentina                      |   |              | 99     | % |
| Aerolinhas Brasileras S.A.                                    |   | Brazil                           |   | ABSA                               |   |              | 73.3   | % |
| Inmobiliaria Aeronáutica S.A.                            |   | Chile                            |   | Inmobiliaria Aeronáutica |   |              | 100    | % |
| Inversiones Lan S.A.                                          |   | Chile                            |   | Inverlan                           |   |              | 99.7   | % |
| Lan Cargo S.A.                                                |   | Chile                            |   | Lan Cargo                     |   |              | 99.89  | % |
| Lan Pax Group S.A.                                            |   | Chile                            |   | Lan Pax Group                      |   |              | 100    | % |
| Transporte Aéreo S.A.                                    |   | Chile                            |   | LanExpress                         |   |              | 100    | % |
| Aerolane, Líneas Aéreas Nacionales del Ecuador S.A. |   | Ecuador                          |   | Lan Ecuador                        |   |              | 71.92  | % |
| Aerotransporte Mas de Carga S.A. de C.V.                      |   | Mexico                           |   | Mas Air                            |   |              | 69.15  | % |
| Lan Perú S.A.                                            |   | Peru                             |   | Lan Perú                      |   |              | 70     | % |
| Lantours División Servicios Terrestres S.A.              |   | Chile                            |   | Lantours                           |   |              | 100    | % |
| Línea Aérea Carguera de Colombia S.A.               |   | Colombia                         |   | LANCO                              |   |              | 9      | % |
| Aerovías de Integración Regional, AIRES S.A.        |   | Colombia                         |   | Aires                              |   |              | 94.99  | % |

----

| 1 | Percentage of equity owned by Lan Airlines S.A. directly or indirectly through subsidiaries or affiliates |
|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
### §7. Fees for tests or investigations

For tests or investigations authorized by the Secretary of the Interior under the provisions of sections 1, 3, and 5 to 7 of this title, except those performed for the Government of the United States or State governments within the United States, a fee sufficient in each case to compensate the United States Bureau of Mines for the entire cost of the services rendered shall be charged, according to a schedule prepared by the Director of the United States Bureau of Mines and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, who shall prescribe rules and regulations under which such tests and investigations may be made. All moneys received from such sources shall be paid into the Treasury to the credit of miscellaneous receipts.

(May 16, 1910, ch. 240, §5, 36 Stat. 370; Feb. 25, 1913, ch. 72, §5, 37 Stat. 682; June 30, 1932, ch. 314, pt. II, title III, §311, 47 Stat. 410; Ex. Ord. No. 4239, June 4, 1935; Ex. Ord. No. 6611, Feb. 22, 1934; Pub. L. 102–285, §10(b), May 18, 1992, 106 Stat. 172.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1932—Act June 30, 1932, substituted "Secretary of Commerce" for "Secretary of the Interior" and changed a reasonable fee to be charged to a fee sufficient to compensate for entire cost of services rendered.

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

#### Change of Name

"United States Bureau of Mines" substituted in text for "Bureau of Mines" pursuant to section 10(b) of Pub. L. 102–285, set out as a note under section 1 of this title. For provisions relating to closure and transfer of functions of the United States Bureau of Mines, see Transfer of Functions note set out under section 1 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1932 Amendment

Amendment by act June 30, 1932, effective July 1, 1932, see act June 30, 1932, ch. 314, pt. II, title III, §314, 47 Stat. 411.
#### Toano Realty Corporation, Respondent, v. Lloyds of White Plains, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 784.]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 97-20725 Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

FRANK ATUAHENE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

ARCHER, WALDNER & VICKERY, L.L.P. and LAURIE PLEASANT, Individually,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-3989)

______________________________________________________

December 29, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this appeal, Atuahene challenges the distr i ct court's

dismissal on summary judgment of his legal malpractice action

against former counsel. Atuahene engaged the appellee law firm to

represent him in pursuing a medical malpractice claim against a

dentist. In the underlying malpractice action, counsel filed suit

and conducted discovery. Atuahene's action against the dentist was

settled for $25,000 and Atuahene consented to the settlement and2

accepted his share of the set tlement funds. Summary judgment

evidence also established that at the tim e Atuahene approved the

settlement he was aware of the allegedly negligent acts of his

attorney.

Under these circumstances, we agree with the district court's

conclusion that under Texas law where a plaintiff agrees to a

settlement with the knowledge of the allegedly negligent ac ts of

his lawyer, the decision to settle severs the causal link between

the lawyer's conduct and the settlement terms. S ee Campbell v.

Wiltshire

, 1996 WL 400110 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] July 18,

1996, writ denied).

Appellant raises a number of new issues for the first time on

appeal, which we decline to consider.

Because the district court correctly granted summary judgment,

its judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - [Summary Notice No. PE-2004-81]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of dispositions of prior petitions.

# SUMMARY:

SUMMARY:

Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption, part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains the dispositions of certain petitions previously received.  The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities.  Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Annette Kovite, (425-227-1262), Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM-113), Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; or John Linsenmeyer (202-267-5174), Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 22, 2004.

Dated: October 22, 2004.

Anthony F. Fazio, 

Director, Office of Rulemaking.

## Dispositions of Petitions

*Docket No.:*                         FAA-2003-16211.                    

*Petitioner:*                         AvCraft Aerospace GmbH.                    

*Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 25.1309(c).*

*Description of Relief Sought/Disposition:*                         To permit operators of the Dornier Model 328-300 aircraft to use Reduced Thrust Takeoff Operations (RTTO) with an indication system that exhibits certain inconsistent flight phase indications in the event of an engine failure below 1000 ft.                    

### Time Limited Partial Grant of Exemption, 02/04/2004, Exemption No. 8237

[FR Doc. 04-24144  Filed 10-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
### §102. Executive agency

In this title, "executive agency" means a department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch of the United States Government.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 102 | (no source). | |

The section is included to avoid the necessity for defining "executive agency" each time it is used in the revised title.
§ 1216.401 Penalties. ( a ) An employee who discloses official records or information or gives testimony relating to official information, except as expressly authorized by the MSPB, or as ordered by a Federal court after the MSPB has had the opportunity to be heard, may face the penalties provided in 18 U.S.C. 641 and other applicable laws. Additionally, former MSPB employees are subject to the restrictions and penalties of 18 U.S.C. 207 and 216.
( b ) A current MSPB employee who testifies or produces official records and information in violation of this part shall be subject to disciplinary action.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO

. 02

- 17

- 00022

- CR

NO. 02

- 17

- 00023

- CR

JIMMY PHILLIP MARTIN APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1449 444D, 1449445D

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “ Motion To Dismiss Appeal. ” The motion

complies with rule 42 .2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this

motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABR IEL, SUDDERTH, and KERR, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 6, 2017
§ 1600.36 Matching contributions. ( a ) A participant is not entitled to keep the matching contributions and their associated earnings that are attributable to refunded default employee contributions.
( b ) The matching contributions and associated earnings attributable to refunded default employee contributions shall be forfeited to the TSP and used to offset administrative expenses.
### §316. Treasury Attaché Program

(a) In General.—There is established the Treasury Financial Attaché Program, under which the Secretary of the Treasury shall appoint employees of the Department of the Treasury as a Treasury Financial Attaché, who shall—

(1) further the work of the Department of the Treasury in developing and executing the financial and economic policy of the United States Government and the international fight against terrorism, money laundering, and other illicit finance;

(2) be co-located in a United States Embassy, a similar United States Government facility, or a foreign government facility, as the Secretary determines is appropriate;

(3) establish and maintain relationships with foreign counterparts, including employees of ministries of finance, central banks, international financial institutions, and other relevant official entities;

(4) conduct outreach to local and foreign financial institutions and other commercial actors;

(5) coordinate with representatives of the Department of Justice at United States Embassies who perform similar functions on behalf of the United States Government; and

(6) perform such other actions as the Secretary determines are appropriate.

(b) Number of Attachés.—

(1) In general.—The number of Treasury Financial Attachés appointed under this section at any one time shall be not fewer than 6 more employees than the number of employees of the Department of the Treasury serving as Treasury attachés on the date of enactment of this section.

(2) Additional posts.—The Secretary of the Treasury may establish additional posts subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) Compensation.—

(1) In general.—Each Treasury Financial Attaché appointed under this section and located at a United States Embassy shall receive compensation, including allowances, at the higher of—

(A) the rate of compensation, including allowances, provided to a Foreign Service officer serving at the same embassy; and

(B) the rate of compensation, including allowances, the Treasury Financial Attaché would otherwise have received, absent the application of this subsection.

(2) Phase in.—The compensation described in paragraph (1) shall be phased in over 2 years.

(Added Pub. L. 116–283, div. F, title LXI, §6106(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4556.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of enactment of this section, referred to in subsecs. (b)(1), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 116–283, which was approved Jan. 1, 2021.
#### Chicago Iron & Metal Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Jacob Berkson and Myer Berkson, trading as Berkson Bros., Defendants in Error.

Gen. No. 19,098.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles N. Gooditow, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 4, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Replevin by Chicago Iron *&*Metal Company, a corporation, against Jacob Berkson and Myer Berkson, trading as Berkson Bros., to recover possession of certain scrap iron. To reverse a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff brings error.

Bernard Margolis, for plaintiff in error; J. S. McClure, of counsel.

Samuel J. Andalman, for defendants in error; Jacob Cohen, of counsel.

Abstract of the Decision.

Sales, § *361*
      ***
      *—when vendee cannot maintain replevin for goods,"*In replevin for scrap iron claimed to have been purchased of defendant, where plaintiff paid a certain sum on the contract and *195proceeded to remové the iron from defendant’s yards until he had removed a quantity which at the agreed price would have amounted to the sum paid, when he was stopped by the defendant from re-, moving any more iron, *held*that a verdict and judgment for defendant was proper, it appearing that the sale was a "spot cash” sale and that no goods were to be removed until paid for.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

*194Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.