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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          37,975
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  301,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    295,889
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               638,832
<PP&E>                                         518,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                 349,012
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 820,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          555,472
<BONDS>                                        240,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,816
<OTHER-SE>                                   (125,794) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   820,490
<SALES>                                      1,428,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,428,189
<CGS>                                          827,148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  827,148
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 61,618
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,324
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    61,618
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 182.30 Where does a Federal agency implement the guidance?

Each Federal agency that awards grants or cooperative agreements or makes other financial assistance awards that are subject to the drug-free workplace guidance in this part must issue a regulation implementing the guidance within its chapter in subtitle B of this title of the Code of Federal Regulations.
#### § 417.755 When will I know whether the USDA suspension is continued or terminated?

The suspending official must make a written decision whether to continue, modify, or terminate your suspension within 45 days of closing the official record. The official record closes upon the suspending official's receipt of final submissions, information and findings of fact, if any. The suspending official may extend that period for good cause. However, the record will remain open for the full 30 days, as called for in § 180.725, even when you make a submission before the 30 days expire.
§ 422.5 Reservation of right to conduct subsequent inquiry, investigation, and adjudication. ( a ) USDA reserves the right to conduct its own inquiry, investigation, and adjudication into allegations of research misconduct at a research institution conducting extramural research subsequent to the proceedings of the research institution related to the same allegation. This may be necessary if the USDA RIO or ARIO believes, in his or her sound discretion, that despite the Panel's finding that the research institution in question had appropriate and OSTP-compliant research misconduct procedures in place, the research institution conducting the extramural research at issue: ( 1 ) Did not adhere to its own research misconduct procedures;
( 2 ) Did not conduct research misconduct proceedings in a fair, unbiased, or independent manner; or
( 3 ) Has not completed research misconduct inquiry, investigation, or adjudication in a timely manner.
( b ) Additionally, USDA reserves the right to conduct its own inquiry, investigation, and adjudication into allegations of research misconduct at a research institution conducting extramural research subsequent to the proceedings of the research institution related to the same allegation for any other reason that the USDA RIO or ARIO considers it appropriate to conduct research misconduct proceedings in lieu of the research institution's conducting the extramural research at issue. This right is subject to paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) In cases where the USDA RIO or ARIO believes it is necessary for USDA to conduct its own inquiry, investigation, and adjudication subsequent to the proceedings of the research institution related to the same allegation, the USDA RIO or ARIO shall reconvene the Panel, which will determine whether it is appropriate for the relevant USDA agency to conduct the research misconduct proceedings related to the allegation(s) of research misconduct. If the Panel determines that it is appropriate for a USDA agency to conduct the proceedings, the ARIO will immediately notify the research institution in question. The research institution must then promptly provide the relevant USDA agency with documentation of the research misconduct proceedings the research institution has conducted to that point, and the USDA agency will conduct research misconduct proceedings in accordance with the Agency research misconduct procedures.
#### § 3002.10 Adoption of 2 CFR Part 200.

Under the authority listed above, the Department of Homeland Security adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance in 2 CFR part 200. Thus, this part gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance and supplements the guidance as needed for the Department.
§ 11.2 Implementation. ( a ) For records required to be maintained but not submitted to the agency, persons may use electronic records in lieu of paper records or electronic signatures in lieu of traditional signatures, in whole or in part, provided that the requirements of this part are met.
( b ) For records submitted to the agency, persons may use electronic records in lieu of paper records or electronic signatures in lieu of traditional signatures, in whole or in part, provided that: ( 1 ) The requirements of this part are met; and
( 2 ) The document or parts of a document to be submitted have been identified in public docket No. 92S-0251 as being the type of submission the agency accepts in electronic form. This docket will identify specifically what types of documents or parts of documents are acceptable for submission in electronic form without paper records and the agency receiving unit(s) (e.g., specific center, office, division, branch) to which such submissions may be made. Documents to agency receiving unit(s) not specified in the public docket will not be considered as official if they are submitted in electronic form; paper forms of such documents will be considered as official and must accompany any electronic records. Persons are expected to consult with the intended agency receiving unit for details on how (e.g., method of transmission, media, file formats, and technical protocols) and whether to proceed with the electronic submission.
§ 417.520 Who places the information into SAM Exclusions? Federal agency officials who take actions to exclude persons under this part or officials who are responsible for identifying disqualified persons must enter the following information about those persons into SAM Exclusions: ( a ) Information required by § 180.515(a) of this title;
( b ) The Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of the excluded or disqualified person, including the social security number (SSN) for an individual, if the number is available and may be disclosed under law;
( c ) Information about an excluded or disqualified person, within three business days, after— ( 1 ) Taking an exclusion action;
( 2 ) Modifying or rescinding an exclusion action;
( 3 ) Finding that a person is disqualified; or
( 4 ) Finding that there has been a change in the status of a person who is listed as disqualified.
§ 1.642 What competency and capacity must a third-party certification body have to qualify for accreditation? A third-party certification body seeking accreditation must demonstrate that it has: ( a ) The resources necessary to fully implement its certification program, including: ( 1 ) Adequate numbers of employees and other agents with relevant knowledge, skills, and experience to effectively examine for compliance with applicable FDA food safety requirements of the FD&C Act and FDA regulations, conformance with applicable industry standards and practices, and issuance of valid and reliable certifications; and
( 2 ) Adequate financial resources for its operations; and
( b ) The competency and capacity to meet the applicable requirements of this subpart, if accredited.
Exhibit 35.1

EXHIBIT 35.1  ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2013 (the Sale and Servicing Agreement) among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2013-1, as Issuer (the Issuer), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, CarMax Business Services, LLC, as
Servicer (the Servicer), and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Backup Servicer, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2014 and ending on February 28, 2015 and of the Servicers performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made
under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing
Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officers
Certificate this 22nd day of May, 2015.



CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC/s/ Thomas W. ReedyThomas W. ReedyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### S. &. D. Explosives, Inc., Respondent, v. Challenge Building and Design Corporation, Appellant.

Order entered November 12, 1969, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing "the complaint granted. The general release given by the plaintiff’s vice-president and secretary on April 24, 1968 operates to defeat the instant action brought by plaintiff to recover for extra work allegedly performed in March, '1968. The release is general in its terms, contains no limitations and provides that it may not be changed orally. No claim is made by plaintiff that the release was procured by fraud or that it was executed under mutual mistake. . It clearly relieves the defendant from liability for the extra work said to have been carried out by plaintiff pursuant to an oral agreement. Admittedly, the subcontract agreement between the parties stated that an order for extra work must be in writing. In addition to the release, the defendant gave to the *748plaintiff and the latter accepted a final check dated April 24, 1968 which contained the legend “Paid in Full—Wappingers Telephone Co. Extension (B.’” Defendant is entitled to judgment. *(Lucio*v. *Curran,*284 App. Div. 1039, affd. 2 N Y 2d 157; *Schoenfeld*v. *Modern Silver Linen Supply Co.,*279 App. Div. 49; *Lehrfeld*v. *Jelineh,*141 N. Y. S. 2d 613 [McNally, J.].) Defendant’s appeal from the order insofar as it granted plaintiff’s cross motion to serve an amended complaint is dismissed as academic. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewich, McNally and Tilzer, JJ.
#### § 3185.10 What does this part do?

This part adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by this part, as the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) policies and procedures for nonprocurement debarment and suspension. It thereby gives regulatory effect for IMLS to the OMB guidance as supplemented by this part. This part satisfies the requirements in section 3 of Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension” (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p. 189), Executive Order 12689, “Debarment and Suspension” (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 235) and 31 U.S.C. 6101 note (Section 2455, Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327).
#### MALMAN, Respondent, v. BABCOCK & WILCOX CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1914.)

Action by Adolf Malman against the Babcock *&*Wilcox Company. E. J. Redington, of New York City, for appellant. S. J. Block, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered with costs to appellant to abide event, on the ground that the evidence does not sustain the finding that the defendant was negligent. Settle order on notice.
## 2002 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

2-19-2002 

# R i ve r a v . W a r de n Al le n wo o d

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 1-3047

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2002 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" R iv e r a v . W a r de n Al le n

w ood " (2002). 2002 D e cisio n s . P ape r 135. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002/135

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 01-3047

JAMIE RIVERA, Appellant, v.

WARDEN, LSCI -- ALLENWOOD,

On Appeal from the United States District C ourt For the Middle District of Pennsylvania D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-00096 District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldw ell

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34. 1(a) February 11, 2002 Before MANSMANN, MCKEE and BARRY, Circuit J udges (Filed: February 19, 2002)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
MCKEE, Circuit Judge. Jamie Rivera appeals the order of the United S tates District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his petition fo r a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.  2241. Inasmuch as we write only for the parties, we need not present the factual or procedural background of this appeal. We have revi ewed the thoughtful Memorandum Opinion of the district court and we will affirm su bstantially for the reasons set forth in that opinion.

_______________ TO THE CLERK: Please file the foregoing memorandum opinion. By the Court

### ________________ _______ Circuit Judge
§ 700.15 Disputes. ( a ) Any dispute under or relating to a grant or agreement will be decided by the USAID Agreement Officer. The Agreement Officer must furnish the recipient a written copy of the decision.
( b ) Decisions of the USAID Agreement Officer will be final unless, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the decision, the recipient appeals the decision to USAID's Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Management, or designee as delegated in Agency policy. Appeals must be in writing with a copy concurrently furnished to the Agreement Officer.
( c ) In order to facilitate review of the record by the USAID's Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Management, or designee as delegated in Agency policy, the recipient will be given an opportunity to submit written evidence in support of its appeal. No hearing will be provided.
( d ) Decisions by the Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Management, or designee as delegated in Agency policy, will be final.
§ 800.201 Findings. A loan shall issue under this regulation only if the Secretary, having reviewed the action of the Application Approving Official, and having considered such other information as the Secretary may deem pertinent, has made all the findings that follow: ( a ) That the applicant is a minority business enterprise.
( b ) That the loan will assist the enterprise to participate in the research, development, demonstration or contract activities of the Department of Energy by providing funds needed by applicant for bid or proposal purposes.
( c ) That, by terms of the loan, applicant's use of the funds will be limited to bidding for and obtaining a contract or other agreement with the Department of Energy, a subcontract with a DOE operating contractor, or a contract with a first-tier subcontractor of a DOE operating contractor in furtherance of the research, development, demonstration or other contract activities of DOE.
( d ) That the funds to be loaned will not exceed 75% of applicant's costs in bidding for and obtaining the contract or agreement.
( e ) That the rate of interest on the loan has been determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury.
( f ) That there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant will make the bid or proposal which is the purpose of the loan, will perform according to its bid or proposal, and will repay the loan according to the terms thereof, regardless of the success of its bid or proposal.
( g ) That the terms and conditions of the loan are acceptable to the Secretary and comply with this regulation and with section 211(e) of the Department of Energy Organization Act.
[46 FR 44689, Sept. 4, 1981, as amended at 48 FR 17574, Apr. 25, 1983]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11524

In the Matter of: CHUCK SCHNEIDER, Debtor. RON ANDREWS, ET AL., Appellants,
VERSUS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

---------------------------------------------

RALPH HEMBREE, ET AL., Appellants,

VERSUS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(4:94-CV-204-Y) August 22, 1997 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appellants, Ron Andrew s, et al., appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee, Allstate Insurance Company,2

by Judge Terry R. Means, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas. Upon listening to oral arguments, reading the briefs and motions of the parties, and extensive review of the record, we find that there is no evidence of any apparent authority upon which the plaintiffs relied. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court with regard to this issue and all other matters.
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 10-K of Capitala Finance Corp. (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen A. Arnall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1.

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 8, 2016 /s/ Stephen A. ArnallStephen A. Arnall Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) Capitala Finance Corp.
# L_2023172EN.01002801.xml

| 6.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 172/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 172/28

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 109/2020

of 14 July 2020

amending Annex XIV (Competition) to the EEA Agreement [2023/1369]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/436 of 24 March 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 906/2009 as regards its period of application (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/436 of 24 March 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 906/2009 as regards its period of application (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIV to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XIV to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 11c (Commission Regulation (EC) No 906/2009) of Annex XIV to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32020 R 0436: Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/436 of 24 March 2020 (OJ L 90, 25.3.2020, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32020 R 0436: Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/436 of 24 March 2020 (OJ L 90, 25.3.2020, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) 2020/436 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 15 July 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 14 July 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 90, 25.3.2020, p. 1.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---