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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HANCOCK FABRICS INC FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER
1, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1998
<CASH>                                          10,860
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,188
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    155,695
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               176,152
<PP&E>                                          21,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 211,663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,634
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           285
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   211,663
<SALES>                                        286,226
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               286,226
<CGS>                                          146,235
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               129,368
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,044
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,579
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,475
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,104
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,104
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00421-CR

EX PARTE Reginald I. BAILEY aka Ray Hill

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 17, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On July 2, 2013, relator Reginald I. Bailey a.k.a. Ray Hill filed an original proceeding, 

complaining about his underlying felony conviction. In 1991, relator was convicted of aggravated 

sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to ninety-nine years’ confinement. On April 30, 1992, 

this court affirmed the judgment in Cause No. 04-91-00588-CR. Therefore, relator’s felony 

conviction became final.

Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to postconviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 

802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 1991); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 

2012); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1990CR7309, styled The State of Texas v. Reginald Bailey, pending in the 

186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Terry McDonald presiding.

 
04-13-00421-CR

481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that “Article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to 

challenge a final felony conviction.”). Because the relief sought in relator’s petition relates to 

post-conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction, we are without jurisdiction to 

consider his petition for writ of mandamus. 

Accordingly, relator’s petition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2 -
§ 2700.995 Principal (SBA supplement to government-wide definition at 2 CFR 180.995). *Principal* means— ( a ) Other examples of individuals who are principals in SBA covered transactions include: ( 1 ) Principal investigators.
( 2 ) Securities brokers and dealers under the section 7(a) Loan, Certified Development Company (CDC) and Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) programs.
( 3 ) Applicant representatives under the section 7(a) Loan, CDC, SBIC, Small Business Development Center (SBDC), and section 7(j) programs.
( 4 ) Providers of professional services under the section 7(a) Loan, CDC, SBIC, SBDC, and section 7(j) programs.
( 5 ) Individuals that certify, authenticate or authorize billings.
( b ) [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 61
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 61 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 61.28 Contents of application for closure. ( a ) Prior to final closure of the disposal site, or as otherwise directed by the Commission, the applicant shall submit an application to amend the license for closure. This closure application must include a final revision and specific details of the disposal site closure plan included as part of the license application submitted under § 61.12(g) that includes each of the following: ( 1 ) Any additional geologic, hydrologic, or other disposal site data pertinent to the long-term containment of emplaced radioactive wastes obtained during the operational period.
( 2 ) The results of tests, experiments, or any other analyses relating to backfill of excavated areas, closure and sealing, waste migration and interaction with emplacement media, or any other tests, experiments, or analysis pertinent to the long-term containment of emplaced waste within the disposal site.
( 3 ) Any proposed revision of plans for: ( i ) Decontamination and/or dismantlement of surface facilities;
( ii ) Backfilling of excavated areas; or
( iii ) Stabilization of the disposal site for post-closure care.
( b ) An environmental report or a supplement to an environmental report prepared in accordance with subpart A of part 51 of this chapter must accompany the application.
( c ) Upon review and consideration of an application to amend the license for closure submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the Commission shall issue an amendment authorizing closure if there is reasonable assurance that the long-term performance objectives of subpart C of this part will be met.
[47 FR 57463, Dec. 27, 1982, as amended at 49 FR 9406, Mar. 12, 1984]
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 958 Reported in House (RH)]







                                                 House Calendar No. 222
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 958

                          [Report No. 109-606]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2006

 Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of July 28, 2006, providing 
for consideration or disposition of any of the following measures:
            (1) A conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2830) 
        to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
        and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform the pension 
        funding rules, and for other purposes.
            (2) A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
        increase the unified credit against the estate tax to an 
        exclusion equivalent of $5,000,000, to repeal the sunset 
        provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes, and to 
        extend expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
            (3) A bill to provide economic security for all Americans, 
        and for other purposes.
                                                 House Calendar No. 222

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 958

                          [Report No. 109-606]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 27, 2006

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
# EUR-Lex - 31984D0262 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31984D0262

**84/262/EEC: Commission Decision of 4 May 1984 concerning the implementation by Belgium of certain measures to adjust capacity in the fisheries sector, pursuant to Council Directive 83/515/EEC (Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 131 , 17/05/1984 P. 0042 - 0042 *

*****

COMMISSION DECISION

of 4 May 1984

concerning the implementation by Belgium of certain measures to adjust capacity in the fisheries sector, pursuant to Council Directive 83/515/EEC

(Only the Dutch and French texts are authentic)

(84/262/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 83/515/EEC of 4 October 1983 concerning certain measures to adjust capacity in the fisheries sector (1), and in particular Article 7 (1) thereof,

Whereas the Government of Belgium intends to introduce a system of financial aids for measures involving the permanent reduction of production capacity in the fisheries sector; whereas, on 10 January and 28 February 1984, it communicated the information concerning this scheme required under Article 6 of Directive 83/515/EEC;

Whereas, in accordance with Article 7 of the said Directive, the Commission has considered whether, having regard to their compatibility with the Directive and to the other structural measures existing or planned in the fisheries sector, the measures contemplated fulfil the conditions for a financial contribution from the Community;

Whereas this Decision does not relate to national aid referred to in Article 12 of the said Directive;

Whereas this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Fisheries Structures,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The measures which Belgium intends to take to implement a financial aid scheme for measures involving the permanent reduction of production capacity in the fisheries sector fulfil the conditions for a financial contribution from the Community.

Article 2

This Decision shall not apply to national aid referred to in Article 12 of Directive 83/515/EEC.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.

Done at Brussels, 4 May 1984.

For the Commission

Giorgios CONTOGEORGIS

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 290, 22. 10. 1983, p. 15.
§ 136.180 Whole wheat bread, rolls, and buns. ( a ) Each of the foods whole wheat bread, graham bread, entire wheat bread, whole wheat rolls, graham rolls, entire wheat rolls, whole wheat buns, graham buns, and entire wheat buns conforms to the definition and standard of identity and is subject to the label statement of ingredients prescribed for bread, rolls and buns by § 136.110, except that: ( 1 ) The dough is made from the optional ingredient whole wheat flour, bromated whole wheat flour, or a combination of these. No flour, bromated flour, or phosphated flour is used. The potassium bromate in any bromated whole wheat flour used is deemed to be an additional optional ingredient in the whole wheat bread, whole wheat rolls, or whole wheat buns.
( 2 ) The limitation prescribed by § 136.110(c)(6) on the quantity and composition of milk and/or other dairy products does not apply.
( b ) The name of the food is “whole wheat bread”, “graham bread”, “entire wheat bread”, “whole wheat rolls”, “graham rolls”, “entire wheat rolls”, “whole wheat buns”, “graham buns”, “entire wheat buns”, as applicable.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,699
<SECURITIES>                                    36,959
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,865
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,076)
<INVENTORY>                                        439
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,809
<PP&E>                                          14,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,002)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,882
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,848
<SALES>                                         51,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,665
<CGS>                                           16,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,374
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,032
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,861
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,171
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,171
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3809

___________ James Stickley, * * Plaintiff, * * Tony Clark, and every prisoner in * Administrative Segregation and * Punitive Isolation; Carl Dwayne * Prince, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Appellants, * Eastern District of Arkansas. * [UNPUBLISHED] v. * * Arkansas Board of Correction; * Recreational Committee; Max Mobley, * Assistant Director over Treatment * Services, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 23, 1998 Filed: March 26, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circui t Judges.

___________The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for th e 1 East ernDistrict of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of th e Honorable Henry J. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- PER CURIAM. Tony Clark and Carl Prince, Arkansas inmates appeal the district court’s 1 dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After a careful review of the record and the parti es’ submissions on appeal, we affirm for the reasons given by the district court

. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The judgment is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
##### 

##### U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2853

## Map Showing Coastal Cliff Retreat Rates Along the Big Sur Coast, Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, California

### *By* Cheryl J. Hapke and Krystal R. Green

### 2004

| *Map showing locations of the nine study sections of coast near Big Sur, California, and the average cliff retreat rates associated with each study section* |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| The average coastal cliff retreat rate along the Big Sur coast is 18 ± 6 cm/yr as measured over a 52-year time period.  The erosion reference features measured as the cliff edge include the well-defined cliff edges common to marine terraces, slight breaks in the slope defining the upper edge of the active lower slope, and the road grade. Cliff erosion and retreat are focused in isolated erosion hotspots that account for most of the calculated average retreat. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Download Scientific Investigations Map 2853 (.pdf) as a 48x34-inch PDF file (SIM2853.pdf; 3.5 MB)

Download Scientific Investigations Map 2853 (.ai) as an Adobe Illustrator file (SIM2853.ai; 128 MB)

Download Scientific Investigations Map 2853 (.eps) as Encapsulated PostScript file (SIM2853.eps; 258 MB)

For questions about the content of this report, contact Cheryl Hapke

Download a current version of Acrobat   Reader for free

| Help   | PDF help   | Western reports  main page | Western Scientific Investigations Maps || Privacy   Statement | Disclaimer   | Accessibility || Geologic   Division | Western Region Coastal & Marine Geology    |

This report is available via print on demand.
| Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey |URL of this page: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2004/2853/Maintained by: Michael Diggles Created" September 10, 2004Last modified: October 4, 2004 (mfd)
#### § 1314.03 Definitions.

As used in this part, the term “mail-order sale” means a retail sale of scheduled listed chemical products for personal use where a regulated person uses or attempts to use the U.S. Postal Service or any private or commercial carrier to deliver the product to the customer. Mail-order sale includes purchase orders submitted by phone, mail, fax, Internet, or any method other than face-to-face transaction.
#### Vardan ZADOORIAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-74007.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.*

Decided Oct. 21, 2005.

Vardan Zadoorian, Law Offices of Asbet A. Issakhanian, Glendale, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Marshall Tamor Golding, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guyton, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Vardan Zadoorian is a native and citizen of Iran. Zadoorian petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which summarily affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

*567Where, as here, the BIA affirms without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny this petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. *See id.*The IJ offered specific, cogent reasons for her credibility determination based on Za-doorian’s lack of basic knowledge of the Christian religion and the implausibility of Zadoorian’s inability to provide the name of the church that he allegedly attended in Iran for over 19 years. These reasons go the heart of Zadoorian’s claim. *See id.*at 1043.

Because Zadoorian did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Zadoorian has also failed to meet the standard for CAT relief. *See id.*at 1156-57; *see also Kamalthas v. INS,*251 F.3d 1279, 1282-84 (9th Cir.2001).

Finally, we decline to apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to dismiss this petition. *See United States v. Van Cauwenberghe,*934 F.2d 1048, 1054-55 (9th Cir.1991) (court has discretion to dismiss an appeal based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine because the doctrine is based on equitable considerations).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Editorial Note on Part 172
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 172 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 172.585 Sugar beet extract flavor base. Sugar beet extract flavor base may be safely used in food in accordance with the provisions of this section. ( a ) Sugar beet extract flavor base is the concentrated residue of soluble sugar beet extractives from which sugar and glutamic acid have been recovered, and which has been subjected to ion exchange to minimize the concentration of naturally occurring trace minerals.
( b ) It is used as a flavor in food.