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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          16,786
<SECURITIES>                                    14,670
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,909
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,588
<PP&E>                                         155,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,854
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,393
<BONDS>                                         32,196
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,350
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,315
<SALES>                                          2,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,788
<CGS>                                            2,835
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,782
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,264
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,518
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,518
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97
        

</TABLE>
#### § 77.506 Electric equipment and circuits; overload and short-circuit protection.

Automatic circuit-breaking devices or fuses of the correct type and capacity shall be installed so as to protect all electric equipment and circuits against short circuit and overloads.
#### § 142.1 Purpose.

This part provides policy, prescribes procedures, and assigned responsibilities regarding the use of copyrighted sound and video recordings within the Department of Defense.
### **CHAPTER 10—FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES**

Sec.
1001.
Definitions.
1002.
Findings and declarations.
1003.
Applicability.
1004.
Responsibilities of congressional committees.
1005.
Responsibilities of the President.
1006.
Responsibilities of the Administrator.
1007.
Responsibilities of agency heads.
1008.
Establishment and purpose of advisory committees.
1009.
Advisory committee procedures.
1010.
Availability of transcripts.
1011.
Fiscal and administrative provisions.
1012.
Responsibilities of Library of Congress.
1013.
Termination of advisory committees.
1014.
Requirements relating to National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Public Administration.
### §101118. Tax exemptions; contributions toward costs of local government; contributions, gifts, or transfers to or for use of United States

(a) Tax Exemption.—The National Park Foundation and any income or property received or owned by it, and all transactions relating to that income or property, shall be exempt from all Federal, State, and local taxation.

(b) Contributions In Lieu of Taxes.—The National Park Foundation may—

(1) contribute toward the costs of local government in amounts not in excess of those which it would be obligated to pay that government if it were not exempt from taxation by virtue of subsection (a) or by virtue of its being a charitable and nonprofit corporation; and

(2) agree to contribute with respect to property transferred to it and the income derived from the property if the agreement is a condition of the transfer.

(c) Transfers Deemed To Be to or for the Use of United States.—Contributions, gifts, and other transfers made to or for the use of the Foundation shall be deemed to be contributions, gifts, or transfers to or for the use of the United States.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3122.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 101118 | 16 U.S.C. 19l. | Pub. L. 90–209, §8, Dec. 18, 1967, 81 Stat. 657. |

Section

In subsection (b), the words "in the discretion of its directors" are omitted as unnecessary.
# C_2009205EN.01003703.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/37

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Impala v Commission

(Case T-464/04) (1)

1

(Competition - Concentration - Sony BMG joint venture - Action becoming devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

2009/C 205/69

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, international association) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Crosby and J. Golding, Solicitors, and I. Wekstein-Steg, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Bertelsmann AG (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented by: P. Chappatte and J. Boyce, Solicitors); Sony BMG Music Entertainment BV (Vianen, Netherlands); and Sony Corporation of America (NewYork, New York, United States) (represented by N. Levy, Barrister, and by R. Snelders and T. Graf, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/188/EC of 19 July 2004 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG) (OJ 2005 L 62, p. 30).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs, both before the Court of First Instance and before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs, both before the Court of First Instance and before the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

1

---
§ 1904.1 Scope and purpose. ( a ) This part sets forth the limits of authority of CIA personnel to accept service of process on behalf of the CIA or any CIA employee.
( b ) This part is intended to ensure the orderly execution of the Agency's affairs and not to impede any legal proceeding.
( c ) CIA regulations concerning employee responses to demands for production of official information in proceedings before federal, state, or local government entities are set out in part 1905 of this chapter.
#### In the Matter of Norman Novak et al., Respondents, v. Henry F. Jones et al., Appellants, and Board of Elections of Nassau County, Respondent.

In a proceeding under section 330 of the Election Law to invalidate the petitions designating Henry F. Jones and Soli Morse for the party positions of comity committeemen of the Democratic party from the 100th Election District, 5th Assembly District, Town of Hempstead, County of Nassau, said candidates appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 26, 1963, made upon the decision of the court, after a hearing, which invalidated said petitions and directed the Board of Elections to reject them. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and petition in this proceeding dismissed upon the ground that the respondents (the petitioners *782in this proceeding), while they were aggrieved candidates at the time they filed their petition initiating this proceeding, were. no longer aggrieved candidates at the time of the hearing by the Special Term or at the time of its decision. It appears without dispute and it was so conceded on the argument in this court, that in the interim the Board of Elections had invalidated respondents’ own designating petitions as candidates and that no .proceeding has been taken to review such ruling of the Board of Elections. Under the circumstances the respondents, as matter of law, lost their standing to contest the petitions designating appellants as candidates for committeemen. No questions of fact were considered by this court. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6524

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff – Appellee, 

v. 

JAYCONUS CORNELLIUS SCOTT, 

Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (7:08-cr-00211-HMH-8) 

Submitted: June 16, 2011 Decided: June 21, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jayconus Cornellius Scott, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun 

Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Jayconus Cornellius Scott appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion seeking credit toward his prison 

sentence imposed after the revocation of his term of supervised 

release. Upon revocation of Scott’s supervised release, which 

was imposed as part of his sentence for conspiracy to defraud 

the United States, the district court sentenced Scott to six 

months’ imprisonment in February 2011. In April 2011, Scott 

moved the district court for credit toward the revocation 

sentence, arguing that he was entitled to credit for time served 

in a state prison from September 22, 2010 until sentencing on 

February 14, 2011. 

District courts, however, are not authorized to 

compute credit for time spent in official detention when

sentencing a convict. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 

333 (1992). Rather, only the Attorney General, acting through 

the Bureau of Prisons, may compute sentencing credit. Id. at 

334-35. The district court was therefore without the authority 

to award Scott credit for the time he spent in state custody. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

United States v. Scott, No. 7:08-cr-00211-HMH-8 (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 

2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
§ 77.215-1 Refuse piles; identification. A permanent identification marker, at least six feet high and showing the refuse pile identification number as assigned by the District Manager, the name associated with the refuse pile and the name of the person owning, operating or controlling the refuse pile, shall be located on or immediately adjacent to each refuse pile within the time specified in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section as applicable. ( a ) For existing refuse piles, markers shall be placed before May 1, 1976.
( b ) For new or proposed refuse piles, markers shall be placed within 30 days from acknowledgment of the proposed location of a new refuse pile.
(Secs. 101, 508, Pub. L. 91-173, 83 Stat. 745, 803 (30 U.S.C. 811, 957))
[40 FR 41776, Sept. 9, 1975]
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. 

# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed October 28, 2003

No. 01-5387
B RETT C. K IMBERLIN AND D ARRELL R ICE, APPELLANTS

v. U NITED S TATES D EPARTMENT OF J USTICE AND B UREAU OF P RISONS, APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 97cv02633)

–———— On Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc

–———— BEFORE : G INSBURG , Chief Judge ; E DWARDS , S ENTELLE , H ENDERSON , R ANDOLPH , R OGERS , T ATEL and GARLAND , Circuit Judges

. O R D E R Appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto have been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of2 the court in regular, active service did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk
A statement by Circuit Judge T ATEL concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc is attached.T ATEL , Circuit Judge , concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: Because the panel now rests its decision on Turner v. Safley , 482 U.S. 78 (1987), rather than on the proposition thatthe government may refuse to provide inmates the infrastructural prison resources necessary for the exercise of their First Amendment rights without triggering constitutional scrutiny, the panel has cured its opinion’s most serious defect. Although the panel’s alternative holding is also flawed, see Kimberlin v. United States Dep’t of Justice , 318 F.3d 228,241–42 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Tatel, J., dissenting), given its extraordinarily narrow scope—applying as it does to only electric guitars—and given that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure disfavor en banc review, see Fed. R. App. P. 35(a) (court generally denies full court consideration unless needed to preserve uniformity or case involves issue of ‘‘exceptional importance’’), I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc.
### §312508. Costs for identification, surveys, evaluation, and data recovery with respect to historic property

Notwithstanding section 312507(a) of this title or any other provision of law—

(1) identification, surveys, and evaluation carried out with respect to historic property within project areas may be treated for purposes of any law or rule of law as planning costs of the project and not as costs of mitigation;

(2) reasonable costs for identification, surveys, evaluation, and data recovery carried out with respect to historic property within project areas may be charged to Federal licensees and permittees as a condition to the issuance of the license or permit; and

(3) Federal agencies, with the concurrence of the Secretary and after notification of the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, may waive, in appropriate cases, the 1 percent limitation under section 312507(a) of this title.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3256.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 312508 | 16 U.S.C. 469c–2. | Pub. L. 96–515, title II, §208, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2997; Pub. L. 103–437, §6(d)(28), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4584. |

Section
January 10, 2011

Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents Page 3 

Table 2. Rating Scheme for Recommendations (Updated November 3, 2008)

Strength of Recommendation Quality of Evidence for Recommendation

A: Strong recommendation for the statement

B: Moderate recommendation for the statement

C: Optional recommendation for the statement

I: One or more randomized trials with clinical 

outcomes and/or validated laboratory endpoints

II: One or more well-designed, nonrandomized trials or 

observational cohort studies with long-term clinical 

outcomes

III: Expert opinion
/* CSS Document for IE 6 *//* design 4 *//* begin left column for homepage */#leftColumnHP {	width: 698px;	float: left; 	padding-bottom: 40px;}#rightColumnHP {	width: 244px;	padding-bottom: 40px;}#leftColumn {	width: 665px;	margin-right: 10px;	float: left; 	padding-bottom: 40px;	padding-right: 10px;	padding-top: 10px;}#rightColumn {	width: 244px;	padding-bottom: 40px;	margin-right: 10px;}/* end left column for homepage */.left {	display: inline;	}.right {	display: inline;	position: relative;	left: 9px;	}.left a:hover {	display: inline;}.right a:hover {	display: inline;}.healthStickerTop {	height: 72px;}.healthStickerBottom {	background-image: url("facilityBottom.gif"/*tpa=http://hab.hrsa.gov/cmsimages/facilityBottom.gif*/);	background-repeat: no-repeat;	width: 275px;	height: 34px;	text-align: center;	color: #FFF;	font-weight: 600;	padding-top: 3px;	margin-top: -3px;}#searchArea {	font-weight: 600;	position: absolute;	z-index: 80;	color: #000;	margin-left: auto;	margin-right: auto;	width: 260px;	padding-left: 700px;	top: 42px;}#topNav {	position: absolute;	font-size: 0.8em;	z-index: 30;	color: #FFF;	margin-left: auto;	margin-right: auto;	width: 250px;	padding-left: 700px;	top: 119px;}#topNav a {	color: #FFF;}.az {	position: absolute;	z-index: 40;	color: #00447d;	margin-left: auto;	margin-right: auto;	width: 80px;	padding-left: 705px;	top: 119px;	font-size: 0.8em;}.az a {	color: #00447d;}.clear {	clear: both;}#pageTools {	position: absolute;	z-index: 80;	width: 150px;	margin-left: auto;	margin-right: auto;	line-height: 1.7em;	font-size: 0.75em;	top: 130px;		padding-left: 740px;}#leftColumnHP .rightBoxContaner {	margin-top: 12px;}.rightBoxContainerTitle {	position: relative;}.rightBoxContanerRecovery {	margin-bottom: 11px;	margin-top: -8px;}.rightBoxContainerBodyRecovery {	background-color: #00457B;	width: 115px;	font-size: 0.8em;	padding: 5px;}#topLevelGlobalNav ul {	padding-bottom: 15px;	margin-top: 0px;} #topLevelGlobalNav ul li{ 	margin-right: 8px;	margin-left: 8px; }#topLevelGlobalNav ul li a{ 	/*color: #394F64;*/	font-size: 0.9em;} .twentyfive {	width: 230px;	float: left;}#secondLevelGlobalNav {	position: relative;	top: 0px;	background-color: #ebf6e6; }   #secondLevelGlobalNav ul{ 	margin-bottom: 2px;	padding-bottom: 3px; }
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Justice expenditure andemployment in the U.S.**
 
1971-1979 | 1979 | 1988
 
SuDoc Number:J 29.9: | J 29.11/2-3:
Item Number:0968-H-13 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001050525
 
March 26, 2018
§ 1704.1 Authority and purpose. ( a ) *Authority.* This part is issued under the authority of 32 CFR 2001.33; Section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526 (or successor Orders); the National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 3001 *et seq.*).
( b ) *Purpose.* This part prescribes procedures, subject to limitations set forth below, for requesters to request a mandatory declassification review of information classified under Executive Order 13526 or predecessor or successor orders. Section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526 and these regulations are not intended to and do not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
----

| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 13(a) or 15(d) 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. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 1 | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 13(a) or 15(d) 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. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**   **

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 18

- 00835

- CV
I N THE INTEREST OF A.A.E. , J.A.E., and G.S.G., Children From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017PA01456 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2019
AFFIRMED Appellant M.E. appeals the trial court's order te rminating her parental rights to her children, A.A.E., J.A.E., and G.S.G. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he concluded there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. The brief satisfies the requi rements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (recognizing Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases). Additionally, counsel certified he sent appellant a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw, advised appellant of her right to review the record and file her own brief, and provided appellant a form m otion to request access to the record. This court issued an order setting deadlines for appellant to request the record and file a pro se brief; however, appellant did not request the record or file a pro se brief.04

- 18

- 00835

- CV

- 2

- After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See id. at 27

– 28 (holding counsel’s obligations in parental termination cases extend through the e xhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court). Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
EXHIBIT
      32.2*








Section
      1350 Certification








I,
      Steven G. Larson, the chief
      financial officer of LaserCard Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), certify pursuant to section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of
      the United States Code that, to my knowledge:





(i)           
      the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending
      December 31, 2007 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934, and





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







Date: February
      5,
      2008





/s/
      Steven G.
      Larson


Steven
      G.
      Larson








_______________________




*           
      The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed “filed” with the SEC
      and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
      the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether
      made
      before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation
      language contained in such filing.