alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §5708. Effect on other statutes

This subchapter does not modify or repeal—

(1) any statute providing for the traveling expenses of the President;

(2) any statute providing for mileage allowances for Members of Congress;

(3) any statute fixing or permitting rates higher than the maximum rates established under this subchapter; or

(4) any appropriation statute item for examination of estimates in the field.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 500.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (1), (2) | 5 U.S.C. 841. | June 9, 1949, ch. 185, §8, 63 Stat. 167. |
| (3), (4) | 5 U.S.C. 842. | June 9, 1949, ch. 185, §9, 63 Stat. 167. |

Statutes at Large

In paragraph (2), the words "Members of Congress" are substituted for "the President of the Senate or Members of Congress" in view of the definition of "Member of Congress" in section 2106.

The first sentence of section 9 of the Act of June 9, 1949, which repealed the Subsistence Act of 1926 and the Auto Mileage Act of February 14, 1931, is omitted as executed.

The first proviso of former section 842, which related to appropriation Acts for the years 1949 and 1950, is omitted as obsolete. The remainder of former section 842, other than the parenthetical expressions, is omitted as executed and existing rights are preserved by technical section 8.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
§ 37.500 What must my pre-award business evaluation address? ( a ) You must determine the qualification of the recipient, as described in §§ 37.510 and 37.515.
( b ) As the business expert working with the program official, you also must address the financial aspects of the proposed agreement. You must: ( 1 ) Determine that the total amount of funding for the proposed effort is reasonable, as addressed in § 37.520.
( 2 ) Assess the value and determine the reasonableness of the recipient's proposed cost sharing contribution, as discussed in §§ 37.525 through 37.555.
( 3 ) If you are contemplating the use of a fixed-support rather than expenditure-based TIA, ensure that its use is justified, as explained in §§ 37.560 and 37.565.
( 4 ) Address issues of inconsistent cost accounting by traditional Government contractors, should they arise, as noted in § 37.570.
( 5 ) Determine amounts for milestone payments, if you use them, as discussed in § 37.575.
§ 203.18 Conflict of interest and disclosure requirements. The Department of Defense shall require each prospective assistance provider on any contract to provide, with its bid or proposal: ( a ) Information on its financial and business relationship with the installation, RAB/TRC members, or any/all potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at the site, and with their parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, subcontractors, contractors, and current clients or attorneys and agents. This disclosure requirement encompasses past and anticipated financial and business relationships, including services related to any proposed or pending litigation, with such parties.
( b ) Certification that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, it has disclosed such information or no such information exists.
( c ) A statement that it shall disclose immediately any such information discovered after submission of its bid or after award. The contracting officer shall evaluate such information and shall exclude any prospective contractor if the contracting officer determines the prospective contractor has a potential conflict of interest that is both significant and cannot be avoided or otherwise resolved. If, after award, the contracting officer determines that a conflict of interest exists that is both significant and cannot be avoided or resolved, the contract will be terminated for cause.
( d ) Contractors and subcontractors may not be technical assistance providers to community members of RABs/TRCs at an installation where they are performing cleanup activities for the Federal or State government or any other entity.
# FORM 6-K

SECURITIES
  AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington,
  D.C. 20549

# Report of
  Foreign Issuer

# Pursuant
  to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of

# Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934

For the month
  of July 2004

ABBEY NATIONAL
  PLC 
  (Translation of registrants name into English)

Abbey National
  House, 2 Triton Square, Regent's Place
London NW1 3AN, England   
   (Address of principal executive offices)

|Indicate
      by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under
      cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form 20-F . . . .X. . . . Form 40-F . . . . . . . . Indicate
        by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained
        in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission
        pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


Yes
  . . . . . . . No . . .X. . . .

---



|For immediate release |  | 23 July 2004
|--------------------- |  | ------------



Abbey National plc (Abbey)

Abbey notes the recent speculation surrounding its share price.  Abbey confirms that it has received an approach, which may or may not lead to an offer being made for the company.  A further announcement will be made in due course as appropriate.

---

# SIGNATURES

Pursuant
  to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has
  duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto
  duly authorized.

|                   |  | ABBEY NATIONAL PLC                               
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: 23 July 2004 |  | By: /s/ Jonathan Burgess                         
|                   |  | Jonathan Burgess
      Head of Investor Relations
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED
HEREIN AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,038
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,748
<INVENTORY>                                     68,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,138
<PP&E>                                         378,339
<DEPRECIATION>                                 160,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 503,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,350
<BONDS>                                        137,519
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           218
<OTHER-SE>                                     229,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   503,655
<SALES>                                        959,223
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               959,223
<CGS>                                          813,771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  813,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   749
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,449
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,010
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,439
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,439
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.51




</TABLE>
#### Steven Boxer, Appellant, v Albert E. Paige et al., Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 15, 1977, granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non con veniens on condition that the defendants accept service in New Jersey and waive any defenses based on the Statute of Limitations, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of forum non con veniens is denied. In the case at bar, unlike Vath v Israel (80 Misc 2d 759), cited by Special Term, there is no question that plaintiff was and is a bona fide resident of the State of New York. Although residence of a party in this State is but one factor to be considered, nevertheless there are additional factors here which militate in favor of retention of this action by the New York courts (Silver v Great Amer. Ins. Co., 29 NY2d 356, 361-363; CPLR 327). Plaintiff's vehicle was registered in New York and he intends to call at the trial two New York physicians who treated him for his injuries following the accident. Furthermore, defendants reside in nearby Fort Lee, Bergen County, New Jersey, and their alleged eyewitnesses reside in the City of North Bergen, Hudson County, New Jersey, not unreasonably distant from the place of trial. Defendants have failed to make any showing that they would be so greatly inconvenienced by an action in this State as to warrant a dismissal for forum non conveniens (Slaughter v Waters, 41 AD2d 810). Concur-Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans and Lane, JJ.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Koninklijke Friesland Foods v Commission**

**(Case T-348/03)**

State aid – Tax scheme of aid implemented by the Netherlands – International financing activities of groups of companies – Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market – Transitional provision – Protection of legitimate expectations – Principle of equal treatment – Admissibility – Legal interest in bringing proceedings

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need for an actual and current interest (Art. 230, fourth para.,
EC) (see paras 58, 72)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision
declaring a State aid scheme imcompatible with the common market and making provision for a transitional scheme – Action brought
by an undertaking excluded from the transitional scheme – Admissibility – Conditions (Arts 87(1) EC and 230, fourth para.,
EC) (see paras 93-96, 100)*

3.                     *State aid – Compatibility of aid with the common market – Possible legitimate expectation of the persons concerned – Protection
– Conditions and limits (Art. 88(2), first para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7) (see paras 132-135)*

4.                     *State aid – Commission decision declaring a State aid scheme incompatible with the common market and making provision for
a transitional scheme – No transitional measures in favour of operators who made an aid application which was still pending
at the time the Commission adopted its decision to open the formal investigation procedure – Operators’ right to place a legitimate
expectation in the granting of a reasonable transitional period (Art. 88(2), first para., EC) (see paras 138, 149-150)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52) in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme which it lays down those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Commission to pay all the costs. |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00401-CR

Christopher Timothy BRADY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 559662

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 5, 2020.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
Steven Drimmer






Exhibit 10.11




	Michael K. Branstetter

	HULL & BRANSTETTER

CHARTERED

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

416 RIVER STREET

P.O. BOX 709

WALLACE, ID 83873-0709

	H.J. HULL(1888-1975)

ALDEN HULL (1919-1984)

PLATT HULL (1914-1992)

TELEPHONE : (208) 752-1154

FAX: (208) 752-0951


	 	January 26, 2006

	 


 Steve Drimmer

Mt. Hope Mines, Inc.

15480 Ventura Blvd., Suite 220

via facsimile transmission only

Sherman Oaks, CA  91403

(818) 981-4418




Re:

Idaho General Mines, Inc. – Mount Hope Mines, Inc.

Payment Schedule

Lease Agreement: October 19, 2005

Dear Steve,

Idaho General Mines, Inc. and Mount Hope Mines, Inc. have agreed to modify the payment schedule set forth in Article 1.1(c) of the October 19, 2005 Lease.  This letter shall serve as Idaho General and Mount Hope’s confirmation of the modification.  A more formal document will be prepared as promptly as possible.

The payment schedule set forth in Article 1.1(c)(i) through (vi) shall be as follows:

	Payment Amount

	Due Date


	 	 
	$125,000.00




	on or before 01/31/06


	$125,000.00




	on or before 04/19/06


	$125,000.00




	on or before 10/19/06


	$125,000.00




	on or before 04/19/07


	$350,000.00




	on or before 10/19/07


	3% of estimated construction costs or $350,000.00




	on or before 10/19/08


	3% of estimated construction costs or $350,000.00




	on or before 10/19/09


	2.5MM or 3% of estimated construction costs




	on or before 10/19/10


	3% of estimated construction costs or 50% of the difference between 3% and 2.5MM




	on or before 10/19/11


	3% of estimated construction costs or 50% of the difference between 3% and 2.5MM




	on or before 10/19/12


	$500,000.00




	on or before 10/19/13


	 	and each 10/19 thereafter











1

P:\TBS\TBS00W










Idaho General appreciates your cooperation and requests that you sign this letter and return it to me by facsimile transmission.  Bob Russell has also signed via facsimile transmission.  The first $125,000.00 payment will be made upon receipt of your fax.

Very truly yours,

HULL & BRANSTETTER CHARTERED




By:

/s/ Michael K. Branstetter




Michael K. Branstetter




Idaho General Mines, Inc.

/s/ Robert L. Russell




Robert L. Russell, President

Date:

27 January 2006













Mount Hope Mines, Inc.

/s/ Stephen Drimmer




Stephen Drimmer, President

Date:

30 January 2006








2

P:\TBS\TBS00W
#### § 188.4 Policy.

It is DoD policy, in accordance with DoD Instruction 4715.15, to implement the DoD ELAP for the collection of definitive data in support of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) at all DoD operations, activities, and installations, including government-owned, contractor-operated facilities and formerly used defense sites.
#### McFADYEN v. FREEMAN

No. 446P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 202

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1997.
### §226. Ensuring timely updates to U.S. Customs and Border Protection field manuals

#### (a) In general

Not less frequently than triennially, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall review and update, as necessary, the current policies and manuals of the Office of Field Operations related to inspections at ports of entry to ensure the uniform implementation of inspection practices that will effectively respond to technological and methodological changes designed to disguise illegal activity, such as the smuggling of drugs and humans, along the border.

#### (b) Reporting requirement

Shortly after each update required under subsection (a), the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall submit a report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives that summarizes the policy and manual changes implemented by such update.

(Pub. L. 118–43, §2, Mar. 18, 2024, 138 Stat. 453.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Eradicating Narcotic Drugs and Formulating Effective New Tools to Address National Yearly Losses of life Act, also known as the END FENTANYL Act, and not as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which comprises this chapter.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-13322

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cr-00335-RDP-TFM-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JOSHUA JARRELL JACKSON, 

a.k.a. "Bam" or "Bam Bam", 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________

(May 17, 2018)

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-13322 Date Filed: 05/17/2018 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Joshua Jackson appeals the mandatory statutory minimum sentence of 240

months that he received after entering conditional pleas of guilty to tampering with 

a witness, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1512(b)(3), and to conspiring to distribute and possess 

with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. Jackson challenges the enhancement of his sentence based 

on his youthful offender adjudication in an Alabama court. Id. § 841(b)(1)(A). We 

affirm.

Jackson’s argument is foreclosed by our precedents. We held in United 

States v. Elliott, 732 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2013), that “a youthful offender who 

pled guilty and was adjudicated must also be considered to have sustained a 

conviction for purposes of the Guidelines career offender enhancement, even if 

state law does not consider him ‘convicted.’” Id. at 1313. And a state adjudication 

that “is considered a ‘conviction’ for purposes of career offender status . . . [is] also 

. . . considered a ‘conviction’ for purposes of enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 841.” 

United States v. Fernandez, 58 F.3d 593, 599 (11th Cir. 1995). Our prior precedent 

rule requires that we follow binding circuit precedent unless and until it is 

overruled by this Court en banc or by the Supreme Court. United States v. 

Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1187 (11th Cir. 2016).

We AFFIRM Jackson’s sentence.

Case: 17-13322 Date Filed: 05/17/2018 Page: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           768408
<NAME>                          Cyanotech Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
       
<S>                             <C>            
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1,397
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                      10
<INVENTORY>                                    2,229
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,960
<PP&E>                                        25,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                25,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,364
<BONDS>                                          129
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        1
<COMMON>                                          68
<OTHER-SE>                                    23,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  25,667
<SALES>                                        7,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,627
<CGS>                                          4,490
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,437
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (125)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     175
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (300)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
- 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 > Installment Buying by City Consumers in 1941

              																	Cox, Reavis, 1900-					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Installment Buying by City Consumers in 1941 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 773*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1944,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4253,			accessed on September 24, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER