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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K FOR THE
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN IT S ENTIRETY BY REFERNCE TO SUCH 
FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000314307
<NAME>                        NOXSO CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
<CURRENCY>                      DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1,000
<CASH>                                                 465
<SECURITIES>                                         1,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     3,666
<PP&E>                                               7,940
<DEPRECIATION>                                         412
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      11,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                8,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                97
<OTHER-SE>                                           3,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        11,199
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                  488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      (107)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     (82)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (326)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (326)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (326)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
### §103a. Department of Homeland Security Nonrecurring Expenses Fund

#### (a) Establishment

There is hereby established in the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the "Department of Homeland Security Nonrecurring Expenses Fund" (the Fund).

#### (b) Transfer of unobligated balances of expired discretionary funds

Unobligated balances of expired discretionary funds appropriated for this or any succeeding fiscal year from the General Fund of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security by this or any other Act may be transferred (not later than the end of the fifth fiscal year after the last fiscal year for which such funds are available for the purposes for which appropriated) into the Fund.

#### (c) Availability of funds

Amounts deposited in the Fund shall be available until expended, and in addition to such other funds as may be available for such purposes, for information technology system modernization and facilities infrastructure improvements necessary for the operation of the Department, subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget.

#### (d) Limitation on apportionment or allotment of funds

Amounts in the Fund may not be apportioned or allotted for any fiscal year until after the date on which the Act making full-year appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the applicable fiscal year is enacted into law, subject to subsection (e).

#### (e) Notification of planned use of funds

The Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be notified at least 15 days in advance of the planned use of funds.

(Pub. L. 117–103, div. F, title V, §538, Mar. 15, 2022, 136 Stat. 343; Pub. L. 118–47, div. C, title V, §539(a), Mar. 23, 2024, 138 Stat. 623.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2022, and also as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, and not as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

2024—Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 118–47 added subsecs. (d) and (e) and struck out former subsec. (d). Prior to amendment, text of subsec. (d) read as follows: "Amounts in the Fund may be obligated only after the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate are notified at least 15 days in advance of the planned use of funds."

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

#### Effective Date of 2024 Amendment

Pub. L. 118–47, div. C, title V, §539(b), Mar. 23, 2024, 138 Stat. 624, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall apply to amounts transferred under such section 538 [6 U.S.C. 103a] on or after the date of enactment of this Act [Mar. 23, 2024]."
Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-93773 of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. on Form S-8 our report
dated April 25, 2003 appearing in this PCS U.S. Employees' Savings Plan Annual
Report on Form 11-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE L.L.P.
Chicago, Illinois
June 20, 2003
#### § 910.823 Special performance standards—operations on prime farmland.

Part 823 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Operations on Prime Farmland,* shall apply to any person who conducts surface coal mining and reclamation operations on prime farmlands.
#### Joseph Pertofsky, Respondent, v. Murray Drucks, Appellant.

Motion by respondent for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and for a stay, denied. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 2800.5 Policies. ( a ) *Basic policy.* Except as provided in the Atomic Energy Act of 1943, as amended, Executive Order 12065, as implemented by ISOO Directive No. 1, provides the only basis for classifying information. It is the policy of this office to make available to the public as much information concerning its activities as possible consistent with the need to protect the national security. Accordingly, security classification shall be applied only to protect the national security.
( b ) *Duration of classification.* Classification shall not be continued longer than necessary for the protection of national security. Each decision to classify requires a simultaneous determination of the duration such classification must remain in effect. For further guidance, refer to sections 1-401 and 1-402, E.O. 12065.
( c ) *Declassification.* Declassification of information shall be given emphasis comparable to that accorded to classification. Decisions concerning declassification shall be based on the loss of the information's sensitivity with the passage of time or upon the occurrence of a declassification event. For further guidance, refer to sections 3-102, 3-103 and 3-104 of E.O. 12065.
( d ) *Systematic review for declassification.* Systematic review for declassification will be in accordance with sections 3-204, 3-401 and 3-503 of E.O. 12065.
( e ) *Mandatory review requests.* Requests from a member of the public, a government employee, or an agency, to declassify and release information will be acted upon within 60 days provided the request reasonably identifies the information. After review, the information or any reasonably segregable portion thereof that no longer requires protection, shall be declassified and released, except as provided in section 3-503, E.O. 12065, unless withholding is otherwise warranted under applicable law.
( f ) *Classification guides.* The Chief Counsel, National Security Council, has determined that, in view of the limited amount of material originally classified by this office, the preparation and publication of classification guides is not required.
( g ) *Access to Classified Information by historical researchers and former Presidential appointees.* Access may be granted under the provisions of section 4-3 of E.O. 12065; however, access is permissive and not mandatory.
FREMONT

CARBON

SWEETWATER

ALBANY

NATRONA

SUBLETTE

LINCOLN

CONVERSE

CROOK

UINTA

LARAMIE

WESTON

PLATTE

GOSHEN

NIOBRARA

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

Bridger-Teton

Thunder 

Basin

Medicine-Bow

Medicine-Bow

Rawlins

Casper

Rock Springs

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Yellowstone Newcastle

National Park

Lusk

Yoder

Hanna

Baggs

Afton

Hulett

Glendo

Casper

Douglas

Bairoil

Rawlins

Laramie

Superior

Sundance

Saratoga

La Barge Guernsey

Pinedale

Kemmerer

Evanston

Cheyenne

Wheatland

Wamsutter

Cokeville

Chugwater

Big Piney

Newcastle

Torrington

Rock River

Pine Bluffs

Green River

Medicine Bow

Fort Laramie

Elk Mountain

Rock Springs

Grand Encampment

0 25 50 100

Miles

0 25 50 100

Kilometers

Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Land Use Plan Amendments

o

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF 

THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

LUP Amendments Planning Area

BLM Field Office Boundary

Forest Service Planning Unit Boundary

Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing

No Surface Occupancy

Federal Mineral Estate

Sage-grouse Priority/Core Habitat Areas

Sage-grouse Connectivity Habitat Areas

Counties

Water

Interstate

State / US Hwy

Cities

Map 2-5: Alternative B

Oil and Gas Leasing Restrictions

Related to Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat
#### § 2103.33 Downgrading authority.

The Staff Secretary, Staff Counsel, and Director of Freedom of Information of the National Security Council Staff are authorized to downgrade NSC documents, after consultation with the appropriate NSC Staff members.
§ 310.6 Appeals from denials of requests for access to records. ( a ) If the requester is dissatisfied with a DoD Component's response, the requester can appeal an adverse determination denying the request to the appellate authority listed in the notification of denial letter. The appeal must be made in writing, and it must be postmarked within 60 calendar days of the date of the letter denying the initial request for records. The letter of appeal should include a copy of the DoD Component's determination (including the assigned request number, if known). For the quickest possible handling, the appeal letter and the envelope should be marked: “Privacy Act Appeal.”
( b ) The appellant will be notified of the decision on his or her appeal in writing. If the decision affirms the adverse determination in whole or in part, the notification will include a brief statement of the reason(s) for the affirmation, including any exemptions applied, and will inform the appellant of the Privacy Act provisions for judicial review of the appellate authority's decision. If the adverse determination is reversed or modified, in whole or in part, the appellant will be notified in writing of this decision and the request will be reprocessed in accordance with that appeal decision.
( c ) In order to seek a judicial review of a denial of a request for access to records, a requester must first file an appeal under this section.
( d ) An appeal ordinarily will not be acted on if the request becomes a matter of litigation.
No. 7959.

#### The Humphreys Manufacturing Co. *v.*Kennedy, etc.

(Decided December 8, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Richland county.

*Messrs. Kerr & LaDow,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Cummings, McBride & Wolfe*and *Messrs~ Briclcer*cG *Workman,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.

Spear, Davis, Shauok, Price and' Crew, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0001347 08-DEC-2015 08:32 AM
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 6, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00432-CV

LAWRENCE THOMPSON, Appellant

V.

KERRY ALLEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-10948

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed December 18, 2013. 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed May 1, 2014.

On September 4, 2014, we directed the Harris County District Clerk to file a 

partial clerk’s record containing (1) the court’s judgment; (2) any request for 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, any post-judgment motion, and the court’s 
2

order on the motion; and (3) the notice of appeal, in order that we might determine 

our jurisdiction.

The record was filed and does not contain any post-judgment motion that 

would operate to extend the appellate timetable. Accordingly, appellant’s notice of 

appeal was due thirty days after the judgment was signed, on January 17, 2014. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. The notice of appeal, filed May 1, 2014, is therefore 

untimely. 

On September 25, 2014, the parties were notified of the court’s intention to 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). 

Appellant’s response fails to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction to 

entertain the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison and Donovan.
#### § 57.12005 Protection of power conductors from mobile equipment.

Mobile equipment shall not run over power conductors, nor shall loads be dragged over power conductors, unless the conductors are properly bridged or protected.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTHA S. PANASZEWICZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

GMAC MORTGAGE

, LLC;

RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY

, LLC,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 13

- 16942

D.C. No. 3:13

- cv

- 01162

- MEJ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Maria

- Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 11, 2017 **

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY, ***

District Judge.

Martha Panaszewicz appeals the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of her diversity

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

*** The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States Distric t Judge for the

Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

SEP 13 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

action against GMAC Mortgage, LLC and Residential Funding Company, LLC.

Based on a promissory estoppel theory, Panaszewicz se eks to annul the trustee’s

sale of her home and impose a constructive trust on the residence. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and r eview de novo the district court’s

Rule 12(b)(6) dismis sal. Kahle v. Gonzales , 48 7 F.3d 697, 699 (9th Ci r. 2007).

W e affirm.

Panaszewicz’s First Amended Complaint does not state a claim for

promissory estoppel under California law

. See Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco

Co. , 697 F.3d 777, 792 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing U.S. Ecology, Inc. v. California , 28

Cal. Rptr. 3d 894, 905 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)). Panaszewicz failed to allege (1) that

Appellees or their agents made any clear and unambiguous promises to postpone

the foreclosure sale

, and (2) any facts showing that she changed her legal position

in r eliance on those statements

. I d. T he district court therefore properly dismissed

her complaint.

Because Panaszewicz did not mak e a prima facie case for promissory

estoppel, t he district court did not err in concluding that a constructive trust could

not be imposed on the property. There are no alleged facts demonstrating that

Appellees gained the property by misconduct, and Panaszewicz has not tender ed or

offer ed to tender the amount owed on the defaulted mortgage loan

. See Lona v.

Citibank, N.A. , 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622, 633, 640 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)

. Thus, the3

district court was not required to exercise its equitable powers. See id. at 640.

Finally, there was no abuse of discretion in den ying Panaszewicz leave to

amend, as her complaint can not be cur ed by further amendment

. See Telesaurus

VPC, LLC v. Power , 623 F .3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 21.1




SUBSIDIARIES OF MICHAEL FOODS, INC.

                                                                 STATE
NAME                                                       OF INCORPORATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Farms Refrigerated Distribution Company                Minnesota
Northern Star Co.                                              Minnesota
Kohler Mix Specialties, Inc.                                   Minnesota
M. G. Waldbaum Company                                         Nebraska
Papetti's Hygrade Egg Products, Inc.                           Minnesota
Casa Trucking, Inc.                                            Minnesota
Wisco Farm Cooperative                                         Wisconsin
WFC, Inc.                                                      Wisconsin
Farm Fresh Foods, Inc.                                        California
Michael Foods of Delaware, Inc.                                Delaware
Midwest Mix, Inc.                                              Minnesota
Minnesota Products, Inc.                                       Minnesota
MIKLFS Corporation                                          Virgin Islands
R&P Liquid Egg Technology Limited Partnership                  New Jersey
Papetti Electroheating Corporation                             New Jersey
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from National
Property Investors 8 1997 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000763701
<NAME> NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS 8
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,777
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      284
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          30,036
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         10,924
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,869
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,812
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,695
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 971
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       117
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.58<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1807.149 Program accessibility: discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 1807.150, no qualified individual with disabilities shall, because the NACIC's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the NACIC.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7497

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOSEPH NADIR NELSON, a/k/a Bam Bam, a/k/a Rockstar Bam, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior 

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00350-BR-2; 5:12-cv-00609-BR) 

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Joseph Nadir Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Rudolf 

A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Joseph Nadir Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 

notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, 

the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after 

the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

November 21, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on September 

16, 2015.* Because Nelson failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the envelope containing the notice of appeal is the 

earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison 

officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### OTT, Respondent, v. HOME FIRE INS. CO. OF BALTIMORE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 14, 1903.)

Action by Albert Ott against the Home Fire Insurance Company of Baltimore.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.