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

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FORM 10-K AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        YEAR
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>           6,421,516
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>          3,596,551
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                     74,227
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>               54,790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  3,725,568
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          81,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                81,527
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                         0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>        6,469,006
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>             150,570
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>             150,570
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>               0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>       (2,824,965)
<NET-ASSETS>                    3,644,041
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                       0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                   6,876
<OTHER-INCOME>                          0
<EXPENSES-NET>                    642,077
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>          (635,201)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>      (1,524,578)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>          (2,159,779)
<EQUALIZATION>                          0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                   0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>             0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>         (2,159,779)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>             110,175
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                   641,727
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>            4,723,930
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>               38.82
<PER-SHARE-NII>                    (14.20)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                 24.62
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                     13.59

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      354716 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            354716 
<PP&E>                                      391984 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              746700 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        55207 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                  12825303 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                               (12133809)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                746700 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           1403918 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1403918)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
§ 795.10 Qualified laboratories. ( a ) *Basic qualifications.* To be designated a qualified laboratory, a firm shall demonstrate that it— ( 1 ) Is staffed with experienced, professional or technical personnel in the fields applicable to the work to be performed;
( 2 ) Has adequate space for material preparation and cleaning and sterilizing equipment and has stationary equipment, storage, and space to accommodate workloads during peak periods;
( 3 ) Meets applicable Federal or State safety and health requirements;
( 4 ) Has analytical, monitoring and measuring equipment capable of meeting applicable standards; and
( 5 ) Has the capability of collecting necessary field samples and making hydrologic field measurements and analytical laboratory determinations by acceptable hydrologic, geologic, or analytical methods in accordance with the requirements of §§ 780.21, 780.22, 784.14 and 784.22 and any other applicable provisions of this chapter. Other appropriate methods or guidelines for data acquisition may be approved by the program administrator.
( 6 ) Has the capability of performing services for either the determination or statement referenced in § 795.9(b).
( b ) *Subcontractors.* Subcontractors, may be used to provide some of the required services provided their use is identified at the time a determination is made that a firm is qualified and they meet requirements specified by the program administrator.
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2007 – Tokai Europe v Commission**

**(Case T‐183/04)**

Actions for annulment – Common Customs Tariff – Classification in the combined nomenclature – Person not individually concerned – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 48-49, 51, 60)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| ACTION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21). |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. |
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 21, 2013

NO. 03

- 11

- 00441

- CV

Timothy Salazar, Appellant

v.

Phillips & Luckey Co., Inc. d/b/a Phillips & Luckey Funeral Home, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO ODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s judgment: IT

IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the trial court’s judgment is in all

things affirmed. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant pay all costs relating to this appeal,

both in this Court and the court belo w; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Johnson, Appellant.

[831 NYS2d 910]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 11, 2005 *(People v Johnson,*22 AD3d 601 [2005]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 9, 2003.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Appeal No. 76-87.

#### State *v.*Nicholas Palmigiano.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Judith Romney Wegner,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff.

*William F. Reilly,*Public Defender, *Barbara Hurst, Richard A. Gonnella,*Asst. Public Defenders, for defendant.

The defendant’s motion that he be allowed to be present during oral argument of this case is denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
GENICOM Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (FILE Nos. 33-29388, 33-41148,
33-49472, 33-53843 and 333-01845) of our report dated January 31, 1996, except
for certain information in Note 3, for which the date is February 15, 1996, on 
our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedules of GENICOM Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and
January 1, 1995 and for the three fiscal years in the period ended December 31,
1995, which report is included on page F-2 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Washington, D.C.
March 28, 1996





                                     E-38
### §167p. Helium-3 separation

#### (a) Interagency cooperation

The Secretary shall cooperate with the Secretary of Energy, or a designee, on any assessment or research relating to the extraction and refining of the isotope helium-3 from crude helium and other potential sources, including—

(1) gas analysis; and

(2) infrastructure studies.

#### (b) Feasibility study

The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, or a designee, may carry out a study to assess the feasibility of—

(1) establishing a facility to separate the isotope helium-3 from crude helium; and

(2) exploring other potential sources of the isotope helium-3.

#### (c) Report

Not later than 1 year after October 2, 2013, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report that contains a description of the results of the assessments conducted under this section.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000.

(Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 426, §18, as added Pub. L. 113–40, §6(3), Oct. 2, 2013, 127 Stat. 543.)
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Demobilization of Manpower: 1918-19

              																	Stewart, Stella, 1887-					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Demobilization of Manpower: 1918-19 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 784*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1944,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4260,			accessed on September 11, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### § 1701.13 Special procedures for medical/psychiatric/psychological records.

Current and former ODNI employees, including current and former employees of ODNI contractors, and unsuccessful applicants for employment may seek access to their medical, psychiatric or psychological testing records by writing to: Information and Privacy Coordinator, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC 20505, and provide identifying information as required by paragraphs (d) and (e) of § 1701.7 of this subpart. The Central Intelligence Agency's Privacy Act Regulations will govern administration of these types of records, including appeals from adverse determinations.
#### § 1802.24 Designation of authority to hear challenges.

The Director, NACIC is the NACIC authority to hear and decide challenges under this part.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions of Union Street-Railway Employees, June 1, 1941

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions of Union Street-Railway Employees, June 1, 1941 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 701*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1942,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4203,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
### §4509. Prohibition of cash award to Executive Schedule officers

No officer may receive a cash award under the provisions of this subchapter, if such officer—

(1) serves in—

(A) an Executive Schedule position under subchapter II of chapter 53; or

(B) a position for which the compensation is set in statute by reference to a section or level under subchapter II of chapter 53; and

(2) was appointed to such position by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(Added Pub. L. 103–425, §2(a), Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4370.)
Motion granted; Order filed August 16 , 2016 .

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14 - 16 - 00 3 24 - CV

____________ DIOGU KALU DIOGU II , Appellant V. ROY MCCLOUD , Appellee On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10 - DCV - 179785

____________ NO. 14 - 16 - 00 330 - CV

____________ DIOGU K. DIOGU II , Appellant V. ROY MCCLOUD , Appellee On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13 - DCV - 210161 

### ORDER2 On April 20, 2016 , appellant filed a notice of appeal from a judgment signed January 21, 2016 , and the appeal was assigned to this court under our appellate number 14

– 16

– 00324

– CV. On April 20, 2016 , appellant also filed a notice of appeal from an order gr anting appellee’s bill of review in a related case below; this notice of appeal was assigned to this court under our appellate number 14

– 16

– 00330

– CV. On June 27, 2016, appellant filed a motion to consolidate the related appeals. The motion is GRANTED , and we issue the following order: We order the appeals pending unde r our appellate case numbers 14

– 16

– 00324

– CV and 14

– 16

– 00330

– CV CONSOLIDATED. The existing filing deadlines in case number 14

– 16

– 00 3 30

– CV will apply to both cases.

PER CURIAM
### Isotopic U-Pb ages of zircon from the granitoids of the central Sierra Nevada, California

By: T. W. SternP. C. BatemanB. A. MorganM. F. NewellD. L. Peck

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1185

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Rosenberg, Minc & Armstrong, Appellant-Respondent, v Mallilo & Grossman, Respondent, and Mason Pimsler, Respondent-Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 485]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered June 14, 2005, which granted defendant law firm’s motion to set aside the verdict with respect to the award of punitive damages against it, granted that portion of the individual defendant’s motion to conditionally reduce the punitive damage award against him and denied that portion of his motion seeking to set aside the award of compensatory damages as against the weight of the evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This is an action by a law firm against the associate of another law firm and his former firm, seeking damages for the associate’s interception of plaintiffs telephone messages from prospective clients after regular business hours by impersonating a member of plaintiff firm in retrieving the messages and then contacting the prospective clients. The associate was convicted of criminal impersonation and was disbarred *(Matter of Pimsler,*286 AD2d 82 [2001]). In addition to seeking damages representing the fees attributable to the misdirected potential clients, plaintiff sought damages for the misappropriation of its expenditures for the phone message service and for its advertising.

The punitive damage award against defendant firm was *336properly set aside because it was not established, under the standard of either clear and convincing evidence *(see Matter of Seventh Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.,*190 AD2d 1068, 1069 [1993]) or preponderance of the evidence *(see Munoz v Puretz,*301 AD2d 382, 384 [2003]), that its conduct exhibited the requisite high degree of moral turpitude. The trial court properly declined to instruct the jury that punitive damages may be awarded for unjust enrichment *(Hutton v Klabal,*726 F Supp 67, 73 [SD NY 1989]); such a cause of action effects disgorgement without regard to moral culpability *(see generally Simonds v Simonds,*45 NY2d 233, 242 [1978]).

The award of compensatory damages against the individual defendant was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence *(see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd.,*9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004]). There was expert testimony that plaintiff was deprived of clients who would have retained it from referrals by those whose messages were intercepted, and testimony as to the diminution in value of plaintiffs expenditures as a result of this defendant’s misconduct. In view of plaintiffs business history, the award in this regard was not speculative *(see e.g. Locke v Aston,*1 AD3d 160, 161-162 [2003]). Given the relatively small compensatory award and the egregious nature of the individual defendant’s misconduct, the punitive damage award against him was not excessive *(see State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v Campbell,*538 US 408, 424-425 [2003]; *BMW of North America, Inc. v Gore,*517 US 559, 582 [1996]; *see also e.g. Brown v LaFontaine-Rish Med. Assoc.,*33 AD3d 470 [2006]; *New Jersey Steel Corp. v Lutin,*297 AD2d 557 [2002], *lv denied*100 NY2d 503 [2003]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Buckley, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.