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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,564,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,863,719
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,866,917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,967
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    88,060,847
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,866,917
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,431
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  196,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (38,289)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (170,545)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 141,295
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (9,040)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (38,289)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
#### SMITH et al., Respondents, v. LONDON ASSUR. CORP., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Arthur W. Smith, Andrew A. Clark, and William Foster Oakes against the London Assurrance Corporation.

No opinion. Motion denied.
Honorable ForresterHancock

CriminalDistrict Attorney Waxahachie, Texas
Dear Sir: Attentton: Honorable F.L. Wilson, Assistant. OpinionNo, O-3703 Re: Can a county commissioners who takes road bond money voted in one road district and spends it in another road district be successfullyprosecutedunder Art. 94, P. C,?
In your letter of June 12, 1941, you request the~opinlon of this departmentupon the above stated question. We quote the following statement taken from your letter,material to the above question:

"The facts are that a certain count commissioner fs alleged to have taken about $2000 .oo of bond money, voted and belonging to Road DistrictX, and expended it inRoadDistrict Y. The people ofRoad District Y are very much displeased and some of them desire to brfng the matter before the Grand Jury. The money can not be repaid, it seems.” Article 94 ofVernon's Annotated Penal Code provides: "Whoever shallwllfullg borrow,withhold or in any manner divert from itspurpose, any special fund, or any part thereof, belonging to or under the control of the State,which has been set apart by law for a specificuse, shallbe confined in the penitentiarynot less than two nor more than ten gears." The foregolngpenal provision expresslyrelates to the diversion of any part of OP thewhole of any special fund "belonging to or under the con,trol of tty State,which has been set apart by law for a specificuse, This article has been broughtdown from the Penal Code of Texas, 1911, In substantlal-Honorable ForresterHancock, page 2 O-3703

lg the same language as when originallyadopted. It seems clear that the article only relates to State funds, under the direct control of the Legislature for State purposes. We find no case applying or construing this provision of OUP criminal laws. Our attention fs called however by 'the publishers of the 1911 Penal Code of Texas, totArtIcle gl Sec. 7 of the Constitution of Texas and upon viewing this provision of our Constitution brought forward from that adopted in 1876, it is evldent that the articlewas enacted by the Legislature inpursuance to this constitutionalmandate for the purpose ofbetter safe-guarding special fundswhich may or ought to come into the Tree%-tiy of the State. Funds derived from the sale of road dlstrLct bonds do not constitute funds belonging to OP under the control of the State.
It is therefore the opinion of this department that Article 94 of Vernon'sAnnotated Penal Code has no application to a dlversion of fundsderlved from the sale of road district bonds under the control of the counties,
Yours very truly
ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS

By s/trm.

J,R, King Wm. J.R, King Assistant
WJRK:RS:wc

APPROVXD JUL 7, 1941 s/GroverSellers FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEYGENERAL Approved Opinion CommitteeBy s/&U3 Chairman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                              2,167
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      27,409
<ALLOWANCES>                        1,871
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   32,780
<PP&E>                             19,242
<DEPRECIATION>                      8,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     49,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              21,152
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                        12,260
<COMMON>                              100
<OTHER-SE>                         (6,020)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       49,607
<SALES>                            14,516
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   14,557
<CGS>                              12,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      25,385
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (11,811)
<INCOME-TAX>                         (827)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (10,984)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (10,984)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (1.13)
        

</TABLE>
§ 36.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval. ( a ) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*). The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0158.
( b ) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in §§ 36.11, 36.13, 36.17, 36.19, 36.21, 36.53, 36.69, 36.81, and 36.83.
( c ) This part contains information collection requirements in addition to those approved under the control number specified in paragraph (a) of this section. These information collection requirements and the control numbers under which they are approved are as follows: ( 1 ) In § 36.11, NRC Form 313 is approved under control number 3150-0120.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[58 FR 7728, Feb. 9, 1993, as amended at 62 FR 52187, Oct. 6, 1997]
#### § 455.4 Recordkeeping.

Each State or other entity within a State receiving financial assistance under this part shall make and retain records required and specified by the DOE Financial Assistance Rules, 10 CFR part 600, and this part.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6894

JAMES PATRICK BEAMON, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-2943-JFM) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Patrick Beamon, Appellant Pro Se. Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).The district court entered its order on April 30, 1997; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on June 17, 1997, which is beyond the thirty-day period. Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal * or to obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
§ 590.201 General. ( a ) Any person seeking authorization to import or export natural gas into or from the United States, to amend an existing import or export authorization, or seeking any other requested action, shall file an application with the FE under the provisions of this part.
( b ) Applications shall be filed at least ninety (90) days in advance of the proposed import or export or other requested action, unless a later date is permitted for good cause shown.
[54 FR 53531, Dec. 29, 1989; 55 FR 14916, Apr. 19, 1990]
Case 2:06-cv-00783-ID-SRW Document 3 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00783-ID-SRW Document 3 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00783-ID-SRW Document 3 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 3 of 3
BARA Infoware, Inc. Western Region | 805 Sun Valley Drive | Woodland Park , CO 80863

The Honorable Ray LaHood March 21

, 2012

Secretary of Transportation

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of Frontier Airlines for Two Beyond

‐ Perimeter Slot Exemptions for Washington

National

– Color ado Springs Nonstop Service (Docket DOT‐OST‐2012‐0029)

Dear Secretary LaHood:

I am a Colorado Springs

- based Program Manager, Regional Operations Director of a Small

Disadvantaged Business, 8(a), BARA Infoware, Inc

. ( www.barainfo.com )

. As our company expands out of

California and into Colorado and the entire Front Range area, we look to provide the most effective cost

, most efficient performance and streamline d schedules to our Govern ment customers in order to be the

best stewards of fund ing that we can possibly be. To that end, travel costs (and increasing fuel costs)

have become a major focus for us

– as it has for the vast number of Defense C ontractors in / around the

Colorado Springs area.

With great interest I have watched the developing research and subsequent news of applications by

Frontier Airlines for two slot exemptions at t he Ronald Reagan Washington Nation a l Airport (DCA)

designed to provide non‐stop service from the Colorado Springs Airport (COS) to DCA

. This initiative,

if approved, will not only allow much more flexibility to Government travelers, but will also allow local

Defense Contractors options to overse e the aforementioned Cost / Performance / Schedules in more

mutually beneficial methods in support of our Government.

Locally, BARA Infoware, Inc. is especially keen to support more direct flights to Washington, DC . F lying

from COS

- to

- DCA will not only produce fiduciary savings , but will also increase safety since much less

time will be spent on highways traveling to

- and

- from Denver International Airport (DIA)

– the only other

option for Colorado Springs

- based personnel.

Finally, and as a Retired Officer who served two tours in the Colorado Springs area, I can attest that the

support to our Active Duty personnel will be significantly enhanced by appr oval of Frontier ’ s additional

DCA slot requests since official travel requirements dictate frequent tr ips to

- and

- from Washington, DC

.

I respectfully request your support and approval of Docket DOT‐OST‐2012‐0029

.

Very Respectfully,

Jeffory A. Perkins, PMP

Program Manager Western Region

Email: jeffory.perkins@barainfo.com

Cell Phone: (719) 650

- 7168
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 31 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a portrait of 

Dilip Singh Saund should be displayed in an appropriate place in the 

United States Capitol or in a House Office Building. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

a portrait of Dilip Singh Saund should be displayed 

in an appropriate place in the United States Capitol 

or in a House Office Building. 

Whereas Dilip Singh Saund was born in 1899, in 

Chhajulwadi, Punjab Province, India; 

Whereas Dilip Singh Saund was inspired to immigrate to the 

United States by the writings of Presidents Abraham 

Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt; 

Whereas Dilip Singh Saund received his Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of California, Berkeley, in 

1924 and served as the national president of the Hindustan Association of America while he was a student there; 
2 

•HRES 31 IH 

Whereas Dilip Singh Saund was a successful farmer for nearly 30 years in Imperial Valley, California; 

Whereas in 1946, Dilip Singh Saund was instrumental in 

ending restrictions which prohibited the naturalization of 

immigrants from India; 

Whereas in 1952, Dilip Singh Saund was elected justice of 

the peace in Westmorland, California, becoming one of 

the first Asian Americans ever elected to public office; 

Whereas Dilip Singh Saund was elected to serve in the House 

of Representatives in 1956, becoming the first Asian 

American and first native of India ever elected to Congress; 

Whereas in 1957, the people of India recognized Dilip Singh 

Saund’s historic election by giving him a hero’s welcome 

when he visited India as a member of the House Foreign 

Affairs Committee; 

Whereas Dilip Singh Saund overcame many obstacles to become a United States citizen and a Member of Congress; 

and 

Whereas Dilip Singh Saund continues to serve as a role 

model and inspiration for the Indian American community: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that a portrait of Dilip Singh Saund should 

3 be displayed in an appropriate place in the United States 

4 Capitol or in a House Office Building. 

Æ
Exhibit 16.1 Letter from PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores Independentes to the Securities and Exchange Commission, dated March 24, 2015, regarding the change in certifying accountant.   March 24, 2015   Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20549  Commissioners:  We have read the statements made by Ambev S.A. (copy attached), which we understand will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Item 16F of Form 20-F, as part of the Form 20-F of Ambev S.A.dated March 24, 2015. We agree with the statements concerning our Firm in such Form 20-F.  Very truly yours,   \s\ PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores Independentes


---



Copy of Item 16F. Change in Registrant’s Certifying Accountant  As previously disclosed in our current report on Form 6-K furnished on January 9, 2015, our board of directors, in compliance with the rules governing the mandatory rotation of independent auditors set forth in CVM Rule No. 308/99, approved the rotation of PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores Independentes, or PricewaterhouseCoopers, as independent registered public accounting firm, who acted as our independent auditor for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010 and the engagement of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Auditores Independentes, or Deloitte, to serve as our new independent registered public accounting firm as from the fiscal year of 2015 until 2018. Deloitte will initiate its activities with the review of our financial statements for the first quarter of 2015.  During the two years prior to 31 December 2014, (i) PricewaterhouseCoopers has not issued any reports on our financial statements or on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting that contained an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion, nor were the auditors’ reports of PricewaterhouseCoopers qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope, or accounting principles, and (ii) there has not been any disagreement over any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedures, which disagreements if not resolved to PricewaterhouseCoopers’ satisfaction would have caused it to make reference to the subject matter of the disagreement in connection with its auditors’ reports, or any “reportable event” as described in Item 16F(a)(1)(v) of Form 20-F.  We have provided PricewaterhouseCoopers with a copy of this Item 16F and have requested and received from PricewaterhouseCoopers a letter addressed to the Securities and Exchange Commission stating whether or not PricewaterhouseCoopers agrees with the above statements. A copy of the letter from PricewaterhouseCoopers is attached as Exhibit 16.1 to this annual report.  During the two fiscal years preceding the rotation of PricewaterhouseCoopers, neither us nor anyone acting on our behalf, consulted Deloitte regarding any of the matters or events set forth in the instructions to Item 16F of Form 20-F.


2
#### § 590.104 Address for filing documents.

All documents filed under this part shall be addressed to: Office of Fuels Programs, Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Docket Room 3F-056, FE-50, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. All hand delivered documents shall be filed with the Office of Fuels Programs at the above address between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
223 So.2d 411

#### Raful NEAL, Jr., et al. v. Kenneth B. WEAVER et al.

No. 49871.

June 13, 1969.

In re: Raful Neal, Jr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 220 So.2d 751.

*291Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.

FOURNET, C. J.,

is of the opinion that the facts of this case from which the court of appeal based its conclusion the plaintiff was contributorily negligent does not support that conclusion and therefore the judgment of the District Judge should have been- affirmed:
#### Nancy Halpern, Respondent, v. Round House Realty Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 20, 1969, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, no triable issues of fact were raised *(Hoffman*v. *Nashem Motors,*20 N Y 2d 513; *Leader*v. *Dinkler Mgt. Corp.,*20 N Y 2d 393; *Hirsch*v. *Buono Tire Co.,*29 A D 2d 545). Bren
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF *

AMERICA *

*

V. * CR. NO. 1:06CR197-MEF

*

RODERICK CHARLES MELVIN *

*

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Comes now Attorney Malcolm R. Newman and enters his

appearance on behalf of Defendant, Roderick Charles Melvin.

Malcolm R. Newman, Attorney, PC

/s/ Malcolm R. Newman

Malcolm R. Newman (NEW017)

P.O. Box 6137

Dothan, Alabama 36302

(334)792-2132

ASB-2826-M39M

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 21, 2006, I have electronically

filed a copy of the forgoing with the Clerk of the Court using the

CM/ECF system which will send notice of such filing to:

Tommie Brown Hardwick

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101

/s/ Malcolm R. Newman

Malcolm R. Newman

Case 1:06-cr-00197-MEF-CSC Document 27 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

BERYL JACKSON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) 

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-785-MHT

)

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

In light of the District Court's Judgment (Doc. #81) pursuant to the Joint Stipulation

(Doc. #80) filed filed 3 April 2008, and the Joint Stipulation (Doc. #82) filed 8 April 2008,

it is 

ORDERED that the in chambers conference set for 9 April 2008, at 10:00 a.m. in

Suite 501-A, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street,

Montgomery, Alabama before the undersigned Magistrate Judge is CANCELLED. It is

further

ORDERED that the undersigned's Order of 3 April 2008, (Doc. #79) is VACATED.

DONE this 8th day of April, 2008.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 83 Filed 04/08/2008 Page 1 of 1