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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of operations, Statement of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part I, Item 7 of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             509,779
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       58,992
<ALLOWANCES>                                         8,014
<INVENTORY>                                          5,686
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   630,218
<PP&E>                                             701,837
<DEPRECIATION>                                     163,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,317,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,015,149
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                        167,071
<COMMON>                                            11,731
<OTHER-SE>                                         116,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,317,203
<SALES>                                            314,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   314,123
<CGS>                                              131,646
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      131,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,618,517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14,938
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,359,208)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,359,208)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,359,208)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.12)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-7409 HECTOR SANTOYO LEONES, a/k/a Victor Flores, a/k/a Bic, a/k/a The Mexican, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-52-BR, CA-97-331-5-BR) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 19, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Hector Santoyo Leones, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Bruce Charles Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Appellant's conviction became final in 1992. On April 23, 1997, Appellant filed his § 2255 motion. The district court denied relief because Appellant filed his motion outside the one-year limitation period imposed by § 2255. Pursuant to our r ecent decision in Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d ___, Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998), Appellant had until April 23, 1997, to file a timely motion. Appellant's § 2255 motion is therefore timely. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue,vacate the district court's order, and remand this case for consideration on the merits. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
# C_2014223EN.01000201.xml

| 14.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 11 April 2014 — Vario Tek GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-178/14)

2014/C 223/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vario Tek GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the fact that a video camera has no zoom function preclude its classification under subheading 8525 80 9 of the Combined Nomenclature in the version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, both amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the fact that a video camera has no zoom function preclude its classification under subheading 8525 80 9 of the Combined Nomenclature in the version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, both amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff? (1)

1

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative, is a video camera recorder able to record sound and images taken by the camera within the meaning of CN subheading 8525 80 91 solely by virtue of the fact that a video or audio file can be copied, via a USB port on the camera, from another device to the interchangeable storage medium required to operate the camera, even though those files cannot be viewed or listened to with the camera alone? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative, is a video camera recorder able to record sound and images taken by the camera within the meaning of CN subheading 8525 80 91 solely by virtue of the fact that a video or audio file can be copied, via a USB port on the camera, from another device to the interchangeable storage medium required to operate the camera, even though those files cannot be viewed or listened to with the camera alone?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 and Commission Regulation No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1.

1

---
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 15

- 0363

Focus Ready Draft 4/13/2015

ENGINEER: Prothero \ AFD \ AH

SAT (concerns) (04/02/2015):

Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:Analogs: (same as typical constituent),

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P1B1T1

Health: 1

- 2 Dermal, Inhalation, XB Testing (Testing desired)

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb), XB Testing (Testing

desired)OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2

- 3B

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 09/30/2013 version of ChemSTEER.INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN : 15

- 0363

ENVIRONM ENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide

with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Note

incineration release << 28,000 kg/site

- day and << 698,000 kg/site

- yr (chronic).INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 15

- 0363CALL BY:

CALL TO:

Organization:

Date:

Time:

PMN: 15

- 0363 Organization:

Phone:

Concerning what TSCA CBI? MEMORANDUM of CBI TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONCALL BY:

CALL TO:

Organization:

Date: 04/08/2015

Time: 11AM

PMN: 15

- 0363 Organization: ERG for RAD

Phone :

Concerning what TSCA CBI? MEMORANDUM of CBI TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 22

- 0 0273

- CR

_____ ______________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1666649D

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Walker 

### O SCAR 

### O RTIZ 

### R IVERA 

### , Appellant

V



### .

T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

By indictmen t , t he S tate charged A ppellant Oscar Ortiz Rivera 1 w ith on e c ount

of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

, a second

- degree f elony

. See Tex. P enal

Code Ann

. § 22.02(a)(2)

. U pon his plea of not guilty

, Ortiz Rivera’s case was tried to

a j u ry , who found Ortiz Rivera guilty as charg ed in the indictm ent and assessed his

punishment at three year s ’ imprisonmen t

. See id. § 12.33 (punis hment range for

second

- degree f

elony )

. The trial court sentenced Ortiz Rivera accordingly

.

After dete rminin g that Ortiz Riv era’s appeal was frivolous, Ortiz Rivera’s

c ourt

- a ppointed appellate atto rney filed a mot ion to withdraw as counsel and

, in

support of that motio n , a brief

. See Anders v. Califo rnia , 38 6 U.S. 738, 74 4

– 45, 87 S. Ct.

1396, 1400 ( 1967 ). Counsel ’ s motio n and brief mee t the requireme nts of A n der s v.
California by presenting a prof essional evaluation of the record demonstrating why

there are no arguabl e grounds for re l ief. S ee id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 140 0

. A dditionall y,

in compliance with Kelly v. Sta te , counsel pro vided Ortiz Rivera with cop ie s of the

brief and motion to withdraw ; he informed Ortiz Rivera of his right to file a pro se

response, to r eview the record , and to seek dis cretionary review pro se should this

court declare his appeal frivolous ; and he s e nt Ortiz Rivera a form motion for pro se

1 The appellant ’ s name is spelled multiple different ways throughout the record. The ind ictment and judgment i dentify him a s “ OS CAR O RTIZRIVERA. ” Throughout the reporter ’ s record

, his sur name is transcri bed as “ Ortiz Ri v era. ” In filings with this court, his appellate counsel identifies him as “ Osca r Ortiz

- Rivera. ” Based on our comprehensive review of the record

, we believe “ Ortiz Ri v era ” to be the cor rect spelling.3

access to the appellate record

. See 43 6 S.W.3d 313, 3 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014 )

. Ortiz

Rivera had t he o ppor tunity to file a pro se respon se to the Anders brief but did not do

so

. The State has not f

il e d a response

. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief and h ave de t erm ined

that thi s appeal is w holly fri volous and without merit

. W e f ind nothing in the reco rd

that might a rg uabl y support th e appe al. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3 d 684, 685 n.6 (T ex

. Crim.

App . 20 06). We the r efore gra nt counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and aff irm the trial

court ’ s judgment

.
/ s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Do N o t Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered : October 1 2, 2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                          96,901
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  616,137
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    416,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,167,171
<PP&E>                                       2,308,875
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,002,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,688,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,164,685
<BONDS>                                        497,680
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,950,565
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,008,454)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,668,708
<SALES>                                      4,606,249
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,630,686
<CGS>                                        3,324,735
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,041,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                57,327
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,023
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,410,359)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,410,359)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,410,359)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMON MORENO HURTADO, AKA Daniel R. Flores, AKA Rodriguez Daniel Flores, AKA Jonathan Magana, AKA Ramon Moreno, AKA Daniel Rodriguez, AKA Daniel Flores Rodriguez,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. N o. 16

- 72075

Agency No. A205

- 719

- 456

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 14, 2021 * *

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and O WENS, Circuit Judges.

Ramon Moreno Hurtado

, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

SEP 17 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 72075

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion for a continuance and his

application for cancellation of removal

. We have juris diction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review

de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009).

We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discret ion or violate Moreno Hurtado’s right to

due process in denying Moreno Hurtado ’s motion for a continuance, where there

was no evidence of mental incompetency

, and where Moreno Hurtado failed to

obtain relevant conviction documents prior to his hearing desp ite being on notice

for over eight months that the documents were required, and Moreno Hurtado

provided no explanation for not obtaining them

. See id. at 1012 (listing factors the

court considers when reviewing the denial of a continuance) ; Lata v. INS

, 204 F.3d

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

The agency did not err in determining that Moreno Hurtado failed to

establish that his conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11350(a) is

not a controlled substance violation that renders him ineligible for cancellation of

removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Pereida v.

Wil kinson , 141 S. Ct. 754, 766 (2021) ( an inconclusive conviction record is

insufficient to meet applicant’s burden of proof to show eligibility for relief ); Lazo

v. Wilkinson , 989 F.3d 705, 714 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding California Health &3 16

- 72075

Safety Code § 11350 is divisible with regard to substance).

Moreno Hurtado’s request for oral argument , raised in his opening brief, is

denied.

T he temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                       EXHIBIT 5




                  {LETTERHEAD OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP}
                                 May 22, 1998


IVI Publishing, Inc.
808 Howell Street, Suite 400
Seattle, Washington 98101

Re:     IVI Publishing, Inc.
        Form S-1 Registration Statement

Dear Sir or Madam:

        We have acted as counsel for IVI Publishing, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with certain transactions involving
the private placement of 5,000 shares of the Company's Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock (the "Preferred Stock") and warrants (the "Warrants"). The
Preferred Stock (i) accrues a dividend of 5% per annum, which dividend may, at
the Company's option, be payable in additional shares of the company's Common
Stock, and (ii) is convertible into shares of the Company's Common Stock, par
value $.01 per Share (the "Shares"). The Warrants may be exercised to purchase 
Shares.

        In connection with the preparation and filing of a registration
statement on Form S-1 (the "Registration Statement"), under the Securities Act
of 1933, we have reviewed the Company's certificate of incorporation and bylaws
and the record of its corporate proceedings and have made such other
investigations as we deemed necessary in order to express the opinions set forth
below. Based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that the Shares issuable as
dividends, upon conversion of the Preferred Stock or exercise of the Warrants
will, upon proper exercise of the conversion or exercise rights provided
therefor, be duly and validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

        We hereby consent to all references to us in the Registration Statement
and all amendments thereto. We further consent to the use of this opinion as an
exhibit to the Registration Statement. We express no opinion as to any matters
not expressly set forth herein.


                                       PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP


                                       By /s/ C. Kent Carlson
                                          ------------------------
                                              C. Kent Carlson
### Analysis of aquifer tests in the Punjab region of West Pakistan

By: Gordon D. BennettAta-Ur-RehmanIjaz Ahmed SheikhSabire Alr

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1608G

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7465 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to index dependant care 

assistance programs to inflation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2024 

Mrs. BICE (for herself, Ms. SA ́NCHEZ, Mr. FEENSTRA, Ms. HOULAHAN, Mr. 

MOOLENAAR, and Mr. TORRES of New York) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to index 

dependant care assistance programs to inflation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Combating High Infla5 tion Limiting Daycare Act of 2024’’ or the ‘‘CHILD Act 

6 of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7465 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASED MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION TO DEPEND2 ANT CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 129(a)(2)(A) of the Inter4 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘$5,000 

5 ($2,500’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000 ($5,000’’. 

6 (b) COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT.—Section 129 of 

7 such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 

8 new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(f) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each dollar amount in this 

11 section shall be increased by an amount equal to— 

12 ‘‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

13 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter14 mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar 

15 year in which such taxable year begins, deter16 mined by substituting ‘calendar year 2022’ for 

17 ‘calendar year 2016’ in subparagraph (A)(ii) 

18 thereof. 

19 ‘‘(2) ROUNDING.—If any increase under para20 graph (1) is not a multiple of $50, such increase 

21 shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $50.’’. 

22 (c) REMOVING DEADWOOD.—Section 129(a)(2) of 

23 such Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D). 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7465 IH

1 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to calendar years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2023. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit No. 21.1

                          Subsidiaries of BNCCORP, Inc.


The  following is a list of all  subsidiaries  of the Company,  including  their
state of incorporation or organization.


                 Name                               Incorporated In
----------------------------------------      -----------------------------

BNC National Bank                                    National Bank

BNC Insurance, Inc. (a Subsidiary of                  North Dakota
   BNC National Bank)

Milne Scali & Company, Inc. (a                          Arizona
   Subsidiary of BNC Insurance, Inc.)

BNC Asset Management, Inc., (a                        North Dakota
   Subsidiary of BNC National Bank)

Bismarck Properties, Inc.                             North Dakota

BNC Capital Trust I                                  Delaware Trust

BNC Statutory Trust II                             Connecticut Trust