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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,788
<SECURITIES>                                     7,357
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,068
<PP&E>                                           1,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                     260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,639
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,350
<SALES>                                          6,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,753
<CGS>                                            3,515
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    510
<INCOME-TAX>                                       214
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       296
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
[No. 38679-4-I.

Division One.

December 22, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William Gilbert Thomas, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 95-1-01287-1, Kathryn E. Trumbull, J., entered May 8, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Cox, J., concurred in by Kennedy, A.C.J., and Becker, J.
#### § 1010.13 Special test procedures.

The Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, may, on the basis of a written application by a manufacturer, authorize test programs other than those set forth in the standards under this subchapter for an electronic product if he determines that such products are not susceptible to satisfactory testing by the procedures set forth in the standard and that the alternative test procedures assure compliance with the standard.

[40 FR 32257, July 31, 1975, as amended at 53 FR 11254, Apr. 6, 1988]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     Exhibit 23


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
EPL Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-42185 and
333-09719) and on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-4306, 333-9795 and 333-4207) of our report
April 7, 2000 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph referring to the existence of substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern) appearing in the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of EPL Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Philadelphia, PA
April 14, 2000
§ 310.540 Drug products containing active ingredients offered over-the-counter (OTC) for use as stomach acidifiers. ( a ) Betaine hydrochloride, glutamic acid hydrochloride, diluted hydrochloric acid, and pepsin have been present as ingredients in over-the-counter (OTC) drug products for use as stomach acidifiers. Because of the lack of adequate data to establish the effectiveness of these or any other ingredients for use in treating achlorhydria and hypochlorhydria, and because such conditions are asymptomatic, any OTC drug product containing ingredients offered for use as a stomach acidifier cannot be considered generally recognized as safe and effective.
( b ) Any OTC drug product that is labeled, represented, or promoted for use as a stomach acidifier is regarded as a new drug within the meaning of section 201(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for which an approved new drug application under section 505 of the act and part 314 of this chapter is required for marketing. In the absence of an approved new drug application, such product is also misbranded under section 502 of the act.
( c ) Clinical investigations designed to obtain evidence that any drug product labeled, represented, or promoted as a stomach acidifier for OTC use is safe and effective for the purpose intended must comply with the requirements and procedures governing the use of investigational new drugs set forth in part 312 of this chapter.
( d ) After the effective date of the final regulation, any such OTC drug product initially introduced or initially delivered for introduction into interstate commerce that is not in compliance with this section is subject to regulatory action.
[53 FR 31271, Aug. 17, 1988]
#### G. M. HUTTON v. CATHERINE BOUCHER.1

November 2, 1923.

No. 23,551.

Action of unlawful detainer not barred by prior action not reduced to judgment.

Findings of fact and conclusions of law, which have not ripened into judgment, *held*not a bar to a subsequent action.

Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis in unlawful de-tainer. The case was tried before Nordbye, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

*Selover, Sclmlts & Mansfield,*for appellant.

*B. E. Planlcerton*and *G. B. Elliott,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 195 N. W. 495.

Stone, J.

Appeal by defendant from judgment of ouster entered by the municipal court of Minneapolis in an unlawful detainer action. Defendant is in possession of the real estate involved as the assignee of the vendee under an executory contract of sale wherein plaintiff is the vendor.

Defendant admittedly is in default because of her nonpayment of several instalments of the purchase ¡price. Because of such default there has been a prior attempt to cancel the contract and oust her from the premises. A notice of cancelation was served, and an unlawful detainer action commenced against her. It resulted in a decision in her favor because of her successful assertion of the defense that plaintiff himself was in default under the contract, having failed in the performance of certain covenants, the performance of which was a condition precedent to defendant’s obligation to pay.

*41Subsequently, defendant’s default continuing, another notice of cancelation was served. Again, it was ignored by defendant, and this action followed. The only defense attempted to be proved was the result of the former suit which was claimed to bar this one. The only proof offered was the decision. It consisted of the conventional findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon which judgment has never been entered. At least no attempt was made to prove such a judgment.

The offered proof was excluded and that ruling is the only error assigned here. Obviously, it was correct. “It is the adjudication which makes a finding in a former action res adjudicata” and a bar. Such a finding which has not ripened into judgment is not a bar in a subsequent action. State v. Brooks-Scanlon Lumber Oo. 137 Minn. 71, 162 N. W. 1054; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 5164. That rule must apply in every case, unless the entry of judgment has been prevented by action of the adverse party or the court in such manner that it would be inequitable not to give to the one entitled thereto the benefit of the bar or estoppel which would attend the judgment when entered.

Judgment affirmed.
(in 000's, except per share amounts)                          

                                     First Quarter Ended
                              April 4, 1998     March 27, 1997 

Weighted average 
 shares outstanding              47,087             48,058

Effect of dilutive
 securities                       1,558              1,615
                              -------------     --------------
Shares for
 Diluted EPS                     48,645             49,673
                              =============     ==============

Income from
 continuing operations          $17,617            $13,654
                              =============     ==============


Per share amounts:

   Basic                          $0.37              $0.28
                              =============     ==============


   Diluted                        $0.36              $0.27
                              =============     ==============
1 

### Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:34 AM

To: 'John.cardenas@10tv.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - WBNS-TV INC.

Dear Mr. Cardenas:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2015

‐ 1385). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

* Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1,

Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed

‐ set filming from

your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non

‐ proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e

‐ mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 7/15/15. If we do not receive

the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feel free to

contact me at (202) 267

‐ 9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202

‐ 267

‐ 9521
Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have not precedential value and

merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles oflaw imposes needless expense

on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50076

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL McCORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(DR-92-CR-78(1))

(October 10, 1995)

Before Jolly, Jones, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Michael McCord contends that the district court improperly grouped

the counts of his conviction in resentencing. He argues that all counts should have been grouped

together as parts of a common scheme or plan. The trial judge, however, concluded that the

conviction charges represented two discernible “harms” requiring separate groupings. We affirm.

Grouping of offenses is a question of legal interpretation of the Guidelines. Therefore, we

review the district court’s grouping of McCord’s offenses de novo. United States v. Patterson, 962

F.2d 409, 416 (5th Cir. 1992). Under the Guidelines “[a]ll counts involving substantially the same

harmshall be grouped together into a single Group.” U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2. This rule includes situations

“[w]hen countsinvolve the same victimand two or more acts or transactions connected by a common

criminal objective or constituting part of a common scheme or plan.” U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(b).
2

Counts one and four involve appellant’s participation in a plan to take advantage of his

position as trustee of the American Bank of Commerce (“ABC”) Employee Stock Ownership Plan

(“ESOP”). Appellant conspired to acquire and sell shares of ABC to the ESOP in violation of his

fiduciary duties. He then concealed his gains by not claiming the proceeds on his income tax return.

These activities represent a common scheme victimizing the Internal Revenue Service and the

employees enrolled in the plan. 

Countsfive, six, and eight, on the other hand, concerned the defrauding of ABC. We agree

with the district court’s decision that the dual groupings reflect the dual nature of the classes of

victims and criminal objectives.

Appellant supports his argument for grouping all of the counts together by citing the lower

court’s denial of a motion for severance prior to the trial. Although both defendants McCord and

O.B. Haley, Sr., filed such motions, the court ruled only on Haley’s motion to split the offenses

between McCord and himself. The order did not address the grouping of sentences and is, therefore,

irrelevant for the purposes of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2.8




March 31, 2017


CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc.
1100 Walnut Street, Suite 3350
Kansas City, Missouri  64106
Re:    Incentive Fee Under Management Agreement for CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Reference is made to that certain Management Agreement, dated as of May 8, 2015 and effective as of May 1, 2015, by and between CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Corridor InfraTrust Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Manager”) (as such agreement has been, and may be further, amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Management Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used and not defined herein are used as defined in the Management Agreement.  The Company and the Manager have entered into this Letter Agreement to waive a portion of the Incentive Fee set forth in Section 8(b) of the Management Agreement applicable to the dividend paid during the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2017.  This letter in no way supersedes our May 9, 2016 letter agreement (effective March 31, 2016) concerning the Management Fee calculation.
This letter documents that the Manager has recommended, and the Company has agreed, that the Manager shall only be paid an Incentive Fee of $139,547 as a result of the dividend paid during the Company’s March 31, 2017 calendar quarter.  This agreed upon incentive fee payment constitutes a waiver by the Manager of $9,031 of the Incentive Fee that would otherwise be due to the Manager from the Company.
The foregoing waiver shall not apply to any prior or future periods, although the Manager reserves the right to waive in the future any Incentive Fee payment to which it may be entitled for one or more future fiscal quarters of the Company.
The Company and the Manager mutually acknowledge and agree that this modification to the Incentive Fee payment right represents a discretionary action on the part of the Manager that is not required under the terms of the Management Agreement and that, except as specifically set forth herein, and as modified in our prior May 9, 2016 letter agreement concerning the Management Fee calculation, all provisions of the Management Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by this letter.






Exhibit 10.2.8



	
				
	 
	 
	Very truly yours,

	 
	 
	CORRIDOR INFRATRUST MANAGEMENT, LLC

	 
	 
	By:  /s/ Richard C. Green, Jr.                                 

	 
	 
	Name:  Richard C. Green, Jr., Managing Director

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	Agreed and accepted:
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	CORENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST, INC.
	 

	By:  /s/ David J. Schulte                                          
	 
	 

	Name:  David J. Schulte, President
§ 522.2476 Trenbolone acetate. ( a ) *Sponsors.* See sponsors in § 510.600(c) of this chapter for use as in paragraph (d) of this section. ( 1 ) No. 000061 for use as in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A), (d)(1)(ii) and (iii), (d)(2)(i)(A), and (d)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
( 2 ) No. 058198 for use as in paragraph (d) of this section.
( b ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.739 of this chapter.
( c ) *Special considerations.* Labeling of implants described in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) and (d)(2)(i)(B) of this section shall bear the following: “Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.”.
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Steers fed in confinement for slaughter* — ( i ) *Amount.* Use 126 days prior to slaughter; should be reimplanted once after 63 days. ( A ) 140 milligrams (mg) trenbolone acetate (one implant consisting of 7 pellets, each pellet containing 20 mg trenbolone acetate) per implant dose.
( B ) 140 mg trenbolone acetate (one implant consisting of 8 pellets, each of 7 pellets containing 20 milligrams trenbolone acetate, and 1 pellet containing 29 mg tylosin tartrate) per implant dose.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For improved feed efficiency.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Implant subcutaneously in ear only. Do not use in animals intended for subsequent breeding or in dairy animals. Safety and effectiveness have not been established in veal calves. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.
( 2 ) *Heifers fed in confinement for slaughter* — ( i ) *Amount.* Use last 63 days prior to slaughter. ( A ) 200 mg trenbolone acetate (one implant consisting of 10 pellets, each pellet containing 20 mg trenbolone acetate) per implant dose.
( B ) 200 mg of trenbolone acetate (one implant consisting of 11 pellets, each of 10 pellets containing 20 mg of trenbolone acetate, and 1 pellet containing 29 mg of tylosin tartrate) per implant dose.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For increased rate of weight gain and improved feed efficiency.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Implant subcutaneously in ear only. Do not use in animals intended for subsequent breeding or in dairy animals. Safety and effectiveness have not been established in veal calves. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.
[66 FR 47961, Sept. 17, 2001, as amended at 69 FR 70056, Dec. 2, 2004; 74 FR 61517, Nov. 25, 2009; 81 FR 48703, July 26, 2016; 88 FR 55566, Aug. 16, 2023]
§ 520.390a Chloramphenicol tablets. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains 50, 100, 250, or 500 milligrams (mg); 1 or 2.5 grams (g) of chloramphenicol.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See § 510.600(c) of this chapter: ( 1 ) For use as in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2)(i), and (c)(3) of this section: ( i ) No. 069043 for 100-, 250-, and 500-mg; and 1- and 2.5-g tablets;
( ii ) No. 054771 for 100-, 250-, and 500-mg tablets;
( 2 ) For use as in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(3) of this section: ( i ) No. 061133 for 50-, 100-, 250-, and 500-mg; and 1-g tablets;
( ii ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer 25 mg per pound of body weight by mouth every 6 hours.
( 2 ) *Indications for use* — ( i ) For the treatment of bacterial pulmonary infections, bacterial infections of the urinary tract, bacterial enteritis, and bacterial infections associated with canine distemper caused by susceptible organisms.
( ii ) For the treatment of bacterial gastroenteritis associated with bacterial diarrhea, bacterial pulmonary infections, and bacterial infections of the urinary tract caused by susceptible organisms.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. Federal law prohibits the extralabel use of this drug in food-producing animals.
[77 FR 4896, Feb. 1, 2012, as amended at 78 FR 21059, Apr. 9, 2013; 79 FR 28819, May 20, 2014; 83 FR 48944, Sept. 28, 2018; 84 FR 8972, Mar. 13, 2019]
§ 176.120 Determinations on late requests. ( a ) If a recipient requests a determination regarding the inapplicability of section 1605 of the Recovery Act after obligating Recovery Act funds for a project for construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair (late request), the recipient must explain why it could not request the determination before making the obligation or why the need for such determination otherwise was not reasonably foreseeable. If the award official concludes that the recipient should have made the request before making the obligation, the award official may deny the request.
( b ) The award official must base evaluation of any late request for a determination regarding the inapplicability of section 1605 of the Recovery Act on information required by § 176.150(c) and (d) or § 176.170(c) and (d) and/or other readily available information.
( c ) If a determination, under § 176.80 is made after Recovery Act funds were obligated for a project for construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair that an exception to section 1605 of the Recovery Act applies, the award official must amend the award to allow use of the foreign iron, steel, and/or relevant manufactured goods. When the basis of the exception is nonavailability or public interest, the amended award shall reflect adjustment of the award amount, redistribution of budgeted funds, and/or other appropriate actions taken to cover costs associated with acquiring or using the foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods. When the basis for the exception is the unreasonable cost of domestic iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods the award official shall adjust the award amount or the budget, as appropriate, by at least the differential established in § 176.110(a).
Order filed August 23, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00706

- CV

____________ SUZANNE S

. RON , Appellant

V.
AVISHAI RON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2 014

- 49671



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed August 17, 2018 . Our review has determined that
a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk’ s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain the order signed July 9, 2018.

The Harri s County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before September 4, 2018, containing the order signed July 9, 2018.If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to

file a supplemental cler k’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM