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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      59,815,000
<SECURITIES>                                31,144,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              115,076,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,510,000
<INVENTORY>                                 81,156,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           318,155,000
<PP&E>                                     148,976,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             162,729,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             693,895,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      156,146,000
<BONDS>                                             00
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    47,205,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 312,167,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               693,895,000
<SALES>                                    501,072,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           514,250,000
<CGS>                                      192,906,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              476,139,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,656,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             38,111,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                14,863,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         23,248,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                23,248,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
        

</TABLE>
## United States Court of App eals F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 11 79

__ __ __ __ __ _ Pat ric ia Lou is e Hy de , * * Pet it io ne r, * * App eal fro m

th e v. * Uni te d S ta te s Tax Co ur t. * Co m m is si on er o f In te rn al Rev en ue , * [UNPUBLISHED] * Res po nd en t. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Subm it te d: Ju ne 28 , 20 12 Fi le d: Ju ly 2, 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, andSMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.
Pat ric ia Lou is e Hy de ap pe al s th e ta x c ou rt’s de ci si on up ho ld in g th e 1 Co m m is si on er of In te rn al Rev en ue ’s de te rm in at io n th at sh e was li ab le fo r an in co m e ta x de fic ie nc y an d ad di ti on s fo r ta x y ear 20 06 , as se ss in g he r li ab il it ie s, an d im po si ng a 26 U.S.C. § 66 73 pe na lt y fo r as se rti ng fri vo lo us an d gr ou nd le ss arg um en t s . Sh e al so ap pe al s th e ta x co ur t’s de ni al of he r m ot io n, un de r Tax Co ur t Ru le 16 2, to va cat e it s d eci si on .

The Hon or ab le Davi d Lar o, Un it edSta te s Tax Co ur t J ud ge . 1Afte r care fu l rev ie w, we ag ree wit h th e ta x co ur t’s de ci si on up ho ld in g Hy de ’s

20 06 li ab il it ie s. See Cam pb el l v. Co m

m ’r, 16 4 F.3 d 11 40 , 11 42 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (ta x co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact are rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r, an d it s le ga l co nc lu si on s are rev ie wed de no vo ). W e al so fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e ta x co ur t’s im po si ti on of th e se ct io n 66 73 pe na lt y , s ee May v . C omm ’r, 7 52 F.2 d 13 01 , 1 30 4- 05 (8 t h C i r . 19 85 ) (s ta nd ardof r ev ie w), or i n t he tax co ur t’s d en ia l o f he r Ru le 16 2 m ot io n.
Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

- 2

-
#### 31.201 General.
July 30, 2015

Mr. Michael Wilson

102 Plaza de Luke Square

Clayton, NC 27527

Dear Mr. Wilson:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 13, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1648), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### 3004.103 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at (FAR) 48 CFR 52.204-1, Approval of Contract, in each solicitation where approval to award the resulting contract is required above the contracting officer level.
#### 2822.406-12 Cooperation with the Department of Labor.

Any information furnished to the Department of Labor, as required by FAR 22.406-12(a), shall be submitted through the HCA, or designee.
#### MAAS v. NANKEVILLE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

February 27, 1906.)

Courts—Municipal Courts—Appeal—Attachment Proceedings.

Under Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, pp. 1562, 1563, c. 580, §§ 253-257, enumerating: the only orders appealable, and making no mention of orders in attachment proceedings," no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to vacate an attachment.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Thirteenth District.

Action by Martin Maas against William E. Nankeville. From an order denying a motion to vacate an attachment, defendant appeals.

Dismissed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREEN-BAUM, JJ.

Franklin Bien, for appellant.

GIEGERICH, J.

In an action for work, labor, and services and materials furnished, the plaintiff gave evidence of an agreed price of $300, but no evidence of reasonable value. The justice awarded him $225 damages. The record shows that this must have been given on the theory of a quantum meruit. Such being the case, I think the amount was too great. According to the evidence, it should not have been more than $200 at the utmost. The damages should be reduced to that amount, and, as thus modified, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

The appeal from the order denying the motion to vacate the attachment cannot be entertained. Under Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. 1648, c. 580, the only orders appealable are those enumerated in sections 253-257 thereof (Leavitt v. Katzoff, 43 Misc. Rep. 26, 86 N. Y. Supp. 495; Smith v. Ely, 46 Misc. Rep. 458, 92 N. Y. Supp. 310), and neither of these sections makes mention of orders in attachments proceedings.

Judgment modified by reducing the amount of the recovery to the sum of $200, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.

Appeal from order dismissed, with $10 costs. All concur.
Exhibit 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

        KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT I, Stephen M. Wolf, Director of US Airways Group, Inc. (the "Company"), do hereby appoint Lawrence M. Nagin and Thomas A. Mutryn, and each of them (with full power to each of them to act alone), attorney and agent for me and in my name and on my behalf to sign any Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2001 and any amendments or supplements thereto which shall be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 156 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 156

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and 
 Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
           Plants; Regulations for Interagency Cooperation''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2024

Mr. Duarte (for himself and Mr. Newhouse) submitted the following joint 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and 
 Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
           Plants; Regulations for Interagency Cooperation''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating 
to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for 
Interagency Cooperation'' (89 Fed. Reg. 24268 (April 5, 2024)), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019238EN.01000201.xml

| 15.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/2

---

Conduct of judicial activity between 1 and 26 September 2019

(2019/C 238/02)

At its Plenary Meeting of 19 June 2019, the General Court took note of the fact that the taking of the oath before the Court of Justice by the new Judges of the General Court will take place on 26 September 2019 and, consequently, confirms that, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, until the new Judges of the General Court take up their duties:

| — | the President of the General Court will be Mr Jaeger; |
| --- | --- |

—

the President of the General Court will be Mr Jaeger;

| — | the Vice-President of the General Court will be Mr van der Woude; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Vice-President of the General Court will be Mr van der Woude;

| — | the Presidents of the Chambers of five or three Judges will be Ms Pelikánová, Mr Prek, Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Mr Kanninen, Mr Gratsias, Mr Berardis, Ms Tomljenović, Mr Collins and Mr Gervasoni; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Presidents of the Chambers of five or three Judges will be Ms Pelikánová, Mr Prek, Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Mr Kanninen, Mr Gratsias, Mr Berardis, Ms Tomljenović, Mr Collins and Mr Gervasoni;

| — | the decision on the assignment of Judges to Chambers, as most recently amended by the decision of 20 March 2019 (OJ 2019 C 139, p. 2), the decisions of 13 July 2016 on the composition of the Grand Chamber and on the method of designation of the Judge replacing a Judge prevented from acting (OJ 2016 C 296, p. 2) and the decision of 11 May 2016 on the criteria for assigning cases to Chambers (OJ 2016 C 296, p. 2) will continue to apply. |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision on the assignment of Judges to Chambers, as most recently amended by the decision of 20 March 2019 (OJ 2019 C 139, p. 2), the decisions of 13 July 2016 on the composition of the Grand Chamber and on the method of designation of the Judge replacing a Judge prevented from acting (OJ 2016 C 296, p. 2) and the decision of 11 May 2016 on the criteria for assigning cases to Chambers (OJ 2016 C 296, p. 2) will continue to apply.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60408

Summary Calendar

MERSID MEHMEDI-AJVAZOSKA,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A077 800 462

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mersid Mehmedi-Ajvazoska, a native and citizen of Macedonia, petitions

this court for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to

reopen his removal proceedings and rescind the in absentia removal order issued

against him. The Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss this petition on the

ground that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 30, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-60408 Document: 00511871222 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2012
No. 11-60408

There is no dispute that Mehmedi-Ajvazoska’s motion to reopen, which

was his second motion to reopen, was not filed within 180 days after the date of

the order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). 

In that motion to reopen, Mehmedi-Ajvazoska sought equitable tolling based

upon ineffective assistance of counsel. “[A] request for equitable tolling of a

time- or number-barred motion to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance

of counsel is in essence an argument that the BIA should have exercised its

discretion to reopen the proceeding sua sponte based upon the doctrine of

equitable tolling.” Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir. 2008). 

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision whether to exercise its

discretion to reopen a proceeding sua sponte. Id.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the petition for

review is DISMISSED.

2

Case: 11-60408 Document: 00511871222 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2012
#### 252.237-7000 Notice of special standards of responsibility.

As prescribed in 237.270(e)(1), use the following provision:

# Notice of Special Standards of Responsibility (DEC 1991)

(a) To be determined responsible, the Offeror must meet the general standards of responsibility set forth at FAR 9.104-1 and the following criteria, as described in Chapter 3, General Standards, of “Government Auditing Standards.”

(1) Qualifications;

(2) Independence; and

(3) Quality Control.

(b) “Government Auditing Standards” is issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and is available for sale from the: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC 20401, Stock number 020-000-00243-3.

(c) The apparently successful Offeror, before award, shall give the Contracting Officer evidence that it is licensed by the cognizant licensing authority in the state or other political jurisdiction where the Offeror operates its professional practice.

(End of provision)

[56 FR 36479, July 31, 1991, as amended at 66 FR 49861, Oct. 1, 2001; 87 FR 65501, Oct. 28, 2022]
#### Wells Fargo, N.A., Appellant, v Marielle Textile, Inc., Defendant, and Donald Gelber, Respondent.

[831 NYS2d 708]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered May 18, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although we find, contrary to the trial court, that a proper foundation was laid for the admission of a microfiche copy of the loan application at issue *(see Briar Hill Apts. Co. v Teperman,*165 AD2d 519, 521-522 [1991]; *Berrios v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.,*162 AD2d 365 [1990]), we affirm the dismissal of the complaint based on the trial court’s finding of fact that the document sued upon is illegible, necessarily meaning that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff a continuance to secure another witness, since, under the circumstances, the proposed testimony would have been immaterial *(see Armetta v General Motors Corp.,*158 AD2d 284, 286 [1990]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Malone, JJ.
# CA2018114EN.01000101.xml

| 28.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 114/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 114/1

---

SELECTION PROCEDURE PE/199/S

Temporary staff member — Management administrator (AD 5)

LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES

(2018/C 114 A/01)

| 1. | FISCHER, Jessica Isabell |
| --- | --- |

1.

FISCHER, Jessica Isabell

| 2. | LEMAIRE, Cléo |
| --- | --- |

2.

LEMAIRE, Cléo

| 3. | COURTADE, Christelle |
| --- | --- |

3.

COURTADE, Christelle

The period of validity of the list of suitable candidates will expire on 31 December 2020.

---
#### 2952.201-70 Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) Clause.

As prescribed in 2901.602-70, insert the following clause:

# Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) Clause (SEP 2014)

(a) A Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) will be delegated upon award. A copy of the delegation memorandum will be provided to the COR and a delegation letter sent to the vendor.

(b) The COR is responsible as applicable for receiving all deliverables; inspecting and accepting the supplies or services provided hereunder in accordance with the terms and conditions of this contract; providing direction to the contractor which clarifies the contract effort, fills in details or otherwise serves to accomplish the contractual scope of work; evaluating performance; and certifying all invoices/vouchers for acceptance of the supplies or services furnished for payment.

(c) The COR does not have the authority to alter the contractor's obligations under the contract, and/or modify any of the expressed terms, conditions, specifications, or cost of the agreement. If, as a result of technical discussions, it is desirable to alter/change contractual obligations or the scope of work, the contracting officer must issue such changes.

(End of Clause)
# C_2019039EN.01001301.xml

| 1.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/13

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

31 January 2019

(2019/C 39/07)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1488 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,81 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4657 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87578 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3730 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1409 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6623 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,760 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 315,88 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2736 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7271 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 5,9689 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5787 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5109 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0137 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6607 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5459 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 277,58 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,2420 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7010 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4238 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 980,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6988 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,843 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 75,1113 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,883 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2041 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,8999 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,6860 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1488

JPY

Japanese yen

124,81

DKK

Danish krone

7,4657

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87578

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3730

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1409

ISK

Iceland króna

137,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6623

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,760

HUF

Hungarian forint

315,88

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2736

RON

Romanian leu

4,7271

TRY

Turkish lira

5,9689

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5787

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5109

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0137

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6607

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5459

KRW

South Korean won

1 277,58

ZAR

South African rand

15,2420

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7010

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4238

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 980,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6988

PHP

Philippine peso

59,843

RUB

Russian rouble

75,1113

THB

Thai baht

35,883

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2041

MXN

Mexican peso

21,8999

INR

Indian rupee

81,6860

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
# C_2016461EN.01000101.xml

| 10.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 461/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 461/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8230 — Nordea Bank/DNB/Relacom Management)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 461/01)

On 5 December 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8230. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8230. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 33-40465) of Commerce Bancorp, Inc. and in the related Prospectus,
and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-82742) pertaining to the
Stock Option Plans of Commerce Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 24,
1997 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Commerce Bancorp,
Inc. and Subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1996.





Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 28, 1997
# C_2019406EN.01000301.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/3

---

Taking of the oath by new Members of the Court

(2019/C 406/06)

Following his appointment as Judge at the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2019 to 6 October 2021 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 1 February 2019 (1), Mr Jääskinen took the oath before the Court of Justice on 7 October 2019.

Following his appointment as Judge at the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2019 to 6 October 2024 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 10 July 2019 (2), Mr Wahl took the oath before the Court of Justice on 7 October 2019.

---

(1)  OJ L 32, 4.2.2019, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 189, 15.7.2019, p. 70.

---