alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1785.69 Cushion of credit payment account computations. ( a ) *Deposits.* Cushion of credit deposits are credited to the borrowers' cushion of credit accounts as of December 20, 2018, with no further deposits accepted after that date.
( b ) *Interest.* Interest at the rate provided for in § 1785.68 will be credited on a quarterly basis to cushion of credit accounts. Interest earned will appear as a reduction in the interest billed on the borrower's RUS notes and will be separately shown on RUS Form 694, “Statement of Interest and Principal Due.”
[87 FR 74502, Dec. 6, 2022]
§ 2500.012 Requests for proposals. ( a ) *General.* For each competitive grant or cooperative agreement, OAO will prepare a program solicitation (also called a request for proposals (RFP)). The RFP may include all or a portion of the following items: ( 1 ) Contact information.
( 2 ) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number.
( 3 ) Legislative authority and background information.
( 4 ) Purpose, priorities, and fund availability.
( 5 ) Program-specific eligibility requirements.
( 6 ) Program-specific restrictions on the use of funds, if applicable.
( 7 ) Matching requirements, if applicable.
( 8 ) Acceptable types of proposals.
( 9 ) Types of projects to be given priority consideration, including maximum anticipated awards and maximum project lengths, if applicable.
( 10 ) Program areas, if applicable.
( 11 ) Funding restrictions, if applicable.
( 12 ) Directions for obtaining additional requests for proposals and proposal forms.
( 13 ) Information about how to obtain proposal forms and the instructions for completing such forms.
( 14 ) Instructions and requirements for submitting proposals, including submission deadline(s).
( 15 ) Explanation of the proposal evaluation process.
( 16 ) Specific evaluation criteria used in the review process.
( 17 ) Type of Federal assistance awards (*i.e.*, grants or cooperative agreements).
( b ) *RFP variations.* Where program-specific requirements differ from the requirements established in this part, program solicitations will also address any such variation(s). Variations may occur in the following: ( 1 ) Award management guidelines.
( 2 ) Restrictions on the delegation of fiscal responsibility.
( 3 ) Required approval for changes to project plans.
( 4 ) Expected program outputs and reporting requirements, if applicable.
( 5 ) Applicable Federal statutes and regulations.
( 6 ) Confidential aspects of proposals and awards, if applicable.
( 7 ) Regulatory information.
( 8 ) Definitions.
( 9 ) Minimum and maximum budget requests and whether proposals outside of these limits will be returned without further review.
( c ) *Program announcements.* Occasionally, OAO will issue a program announcement (PA) to alert potential applicants and the public about new and ongoing funding opportunities. These PAs may provide tentative due dates and are released without associated proposal packages. No proposals are solicited under a PA. PAs will be announced in the Federal Register or on the OAO Web site.
<PAGE>   1




                                  EXHIBIT 11.3

         Computation of Earnings Per Share for Fiscal Year ended December 31,
         1996
<PAGE>   2



CHINA RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT INC
EXHIBIT 11.3 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

(Amounts in thousands except share and per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                   Year ended December 31,
                                                             1994          1995         1996
                                                           -----------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>          <C>          <C>      
Primary
   Average shares outstanding                              1,200,000    1,200,000    3,533,512
   Net effect of dilutive stock options -
     based on the treasury stock method
     using average market price                                   --       30,356      219,170
   Assume conversion of series B convertible
   preferred stock                                                --        2,251           --
                                                           ---------    ---------    ---------

   Total                                                   1,200,000    1,232,607    3,752,682
                                                           =========    =========    =========

   Net income                                              RMB10,282    RMB19,175    RMB35,822
                                                           =========    =========    =========

   Per share amount                                        RMB  8.57    RMB 15.56    RMB  9.55
                                                           =========    =========    =========

Fully Diluted
   Average shares outstanding                              1,200,000    1,200,000    3,533,512
   Net effect of dilutive stock options -
     based on the treasury stock method using
     the year-end market price, if higher than
     average market price                                         --       47,424      219,798
   Assume conversion of series B convertible
     preferred stock                                              --        2,251           --
                                                           ---------    ---------    ---------

   Total                                                   1,200,000    1,249,675    3,753,310
                                                           =========    =========    =========

   Net income                                              RMB10,282    RMB19,175    RMB35,822
                                                           =========    =========    =========

   Per share amount                                        RMB  8.57    RMB 15.34    RMB  9.54
                                                           =========    =========    =========

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeal s San Antonio, Texas

April 16, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00267

- CV

Joe Jesse PONCE III, Appellant

v.

COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 04768 Mary C. Brown , Judge Presidi ng



### O R D E R

After this court granted Appellant’s first four motion s for extension of time to file the brief, we set Appellant ’ s brief due on April 30 , 2021

. Before that date

, new lead counsel for Appellant filed a n unopposed fifth motion for an extension of time to file the brief until May 14

, 202 1

. Appellant ’ s motion is GRANTED. Appellant ’ s brief is due on May 14 , 202 1

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d). Any further request for an extension of time to file the brief may be disfavored.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 16th day of April, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1106
ROBERT HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, Dept-A1; RONALD S. POLOTSKY; LORIEN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-3596-AMD) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 18, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Hayes appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hayes v. Health & Mental Hygiene , No. CA-03-3596-AMD (D. Md. Jan. 5, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Mary Susanna Miller, appellant, v. John W. Sutherland, appellee.

Gen. No. 37,388.

Opinion filed November 27, 1934.

Rehearing denied December 10, 1934.

Hugh O’Neill and Hugh O’Neill, Jr., for appellant. Arthur H. Jones, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VINODH RAGHUBIR,

Petitioner,

v. 4:19cv598–WS/EMT

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, USCA JUDICIARY, and 

US DISTRICT COURT JUDICIARY,

Respondents.

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF

No. 24) dated February 28, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that this case

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with an order of the court. In

response to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the petitioner has

filed a “Motion to Vacate Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60" (ECF No. 27), which the

undersigned has construed as objections to the report and recommendation. 

 Having reviewed the record in this case, the undersigned has determined

that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is due to be adopted.
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 24) is

hereby ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Petitioner’s petition (ECF No. 1) for writ of habeas corpus and this action

are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with a court 

3. Petitioner’s most recent Rule 60(b) motion (ECF No. 27), construed as

objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, is DENIED. 

4. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: “All claims are DISMISSED

without prejudice.”

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of March , 2020.

s/ William Stafford

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EXHIBIT 12.1
 UTi WORLDWIDE INC.
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  (in thousands)
 Year ended January 31,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005Pre-tax income from continuing operations (net of
minority interest in net income)
    
    $
    7,488
    
    
    $
    139,280
    
    
    $
    138,655
    
    
    $
    94,329
    
    
    $
    62,804Add fixed charges computed below
    
    
    81,005
    
    
    
    70,524
    
    
    
    57,514
    
    
    
    36,280
    
    
    
    25,807Minus capitalized interest
    
    
    (1,558
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Consolidated earnings available for Fixed Charges
    
    $
    86,935
    
    
    $
    209,804
    
    
    $
    196,169
    
    
    $
    130,609
    
    
    $
    88,611Consolidated Fixed ChargesInterest expense per financial statements
    
    $
    30,560
    
    
    $
    26,804
    
    
    $
    23,376
    
    
    $
    9,060
    
    
    $
    4,544Portion of rentals (1/3) representing an interest factor
    
    
    50,445
    
    
    
    43,720
    
    
    
    34,138
    
    
    
    27,220
    
    
    
    21,263Consolidated Fixed Charges
    
    $
    81,005
    
    
    $
    70,524
    
    
    $
    57,514
    
    
    $
    36,280
    
    
    $
    25,807Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    1.1x
    
    
    
    3.0x
    
    
    
    3.4x
    
    
    
    3.6x
    
    
    
    3.4x
Exhibit 14  NOVA NATURAL RESOURCES CORPORATION FINANCIAL CODE OF ETHICS  As a public company, it is of critical importance that NOVA NATURAL RESOURCES CORPORATION'S (NOVA) filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission be accurate and timely.  The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has a special role both to adhere to the principles of integrity and also to ensure that a culture exists throughout NOVA as a whole that ensures the fair and timely reporting of NOVA's financial results and conditions. Because of this special role, the CEO and all members of NOVA's team are bound by NOVA's Financial Code of Ethics, and by accepting the Financial Code of Ethics, each agrees that they will:  - Act with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest in personal and professional relationships.  - Provide information that is accurate, complete, objective, relevant, timely and understandable to ensure full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in the reports and documents that NOVA files with, or submits to, government agencies and in other public communications.  - Comply with the rules and regulations of federal, state and local governments, and other appropriate private and public regulatory agencies.  - Act in good faith, responsibly, with due care, competence and diligence, without misrepresenting material facts or allowing one's independent judgment to be subordinated.  - Respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of one's work, except when authorized or otherwise legally obligated to disclose. Confidential information acquired in the course of one's work will not be used for personal advantage.  - Share job knowledge and maintain skills important and relevant to stakeholders needs.  - Proactively promote and be an example of ethical behavior as a responsible partner among peers, in the work environment and in the community.  - Achieve responsible use of, and control over, all NOVA assets and resources employed by, or entrusted to yourself, and your department.  - Receive the full and active support and cooperation of NOVA's Officers, Senior Staff, and all employees in the adherence to this Financial Code of Ethics.
Exhibit 32.2





HARLEYSVILLE GROUP INC.



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Harleysville Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur E. Chandler, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

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









|                      |  |                                                  
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date:  March 10, 2009 |  | /s/ARTHUR E. CHANDLER                            
|                      |  | Arthur E. Chandler                               
|                      |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JEFFREY G. FUTURE, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 114 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Figure 7. Stubborn pay gap persists for 50 years (constant dollars in                thousands) 

 Year = 1951: Women = 8,865; Men = 5,000
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and




---



##### 



b.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 /s/
George M. Longest, Jr.George M. Longest, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 27.33 Exposing of samples for classification.

Classification shall not proceed until the samples, after being delivered to the Marketing Services Office, shall have been exposed for such length of time as in the judgment of the Area Director shall be sufficient to put them in proper condition for the purpose.

[48 FR 49211, Oct. 25, 1983]
#### Bransom vs. Bacon *et al.*

Trespass Case 80.

Frror to the Franklin Circuit; Todd, Judge.

*Distress. Exeeution laws.*

April 24.

Judge Nicholas

d-livered the opinion of the courl.

In an action of trespass *de bonis asportatis,*brought by the plaintiff against the defendants in error, it was proved that M’Qjiiddy, as constable, by direction of Bacon, tinder a distress warrant in favor of Bacon, against Bransom, seized and carried away, among other things, all Bransom’s beds and bedding, and the wearing apparel of his wife and children, which were of the household and domestic manufacture of the wife.

The court, at the instance of the defendants, instructed *the jury, that all the*statutes, prior to the acts of 1828, exempting certain property from sale under execution or distress warrant, had been repealed by that act, so far as related to distress for rent, and that no property was exempted by that act from seizure and sale by distress for rent, and therefore all the property mentioned was subject to the warrant, and the defendants were justifiable in taking it.

After an attentive examination of the act referred to, we have found nothing whatever to authorize the interpretation given to it by the circuit court. *260It is true, that, it is entitled ‘an act, to reduce into one. the execution laws of the state;” that, a proviso in its 13th section enumerates certain articles of property that shall be exempt from execution; that it repeals all acts coming within its purview; but, these features, cannot be considered as producing the effect imputed to the act. It no where prescribes the mode of proceeding under distress for rent, and it could with equal, if not greater propriety, be construed to repeal all laws, authorising the collection of rent by distress. There is in truth no just ground for either construction. In most if not all our legislation, the rules of proceeding under execution, and under distress warrants have been kept separate and distinct, and the two subjectsJegislated upon apart from each other. The acts of 1815, and 1820, I. Digest 498, so far as they exempt certain property from distress, are still in force, and no way repealed by either the letter'or spirit of the general execution act of 1828.

Statutes of I«15 an'l 20, which exempt certain property from Stress, have lot been repealed by Hie execoti *n law of 1828.

*Monroe*and Sanders, for plaintiff; Richardson, for defendants.

For the error committed by the court in tlie instruction given to the jury, the judgment is reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion.

Plaintiff in error to recover costs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1218

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1218 appear at 66 FR 37118, 37119, July 17, 2001, and 71 FR 77245, Dec. 26, 2006.

#### § 1218.61 Books and records.

Each first handler, producer, and importer subject to this subpart shall maintain and make available for inspection by the Secretary such books and records as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this subpart and the regulations issued thereunder, including such records as are necessary to verify any reports required. Such records shall be retained for at least 2 years beyond the fiscal period of their applicability.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsModel authoring system for fail safe analysisThe Model Authoring System is a prototype software application for generating fault tree analyses and failure mode and effects analyses for circuit designs. Utilizing established artificial intelligence and expert system techniques, the circuits are modeled as a frame-based knowledge base in an expert system shell, which allows the use of object oriented programming and an inference engine. The behavior of the circuit is then captured through IF-THEN rules, which then are searched to generate either a graphical fault tree analysis or failure modes and effects analysis. Sophisticated authoring techniques allow the circuit to be easily modeled, permit its behavior to be quickly defined, and provide abstraction features to deal with complexity.Document ID19900019826Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsSikora, Scott E.*(Draper (Charles Stark) Lab., Inc. Cambridge, MA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1990Publication InformationPublisher: NASASubject CategorySystems AnalysisReport/Patent NumberH-1620NASA-CR-4317NAS 1.26:4317Accession Number90N29142Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS2-12451PROJECT: RTOP 505-68-27Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900019826.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024