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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             776
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,399
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,642
<PP&E>                                          13,049
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,279
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,518
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,937
<SALES>                                        114,544
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,544
<CGS>                                           65,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,233
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   231
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,123
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,921
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,202
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,202
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, do hereby
certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The
annual report on Form 10-K of the TIAA Real Estate Account (the Account) for
the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Account.

| |                         |                                                    
| | ----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Dated: March
  20, 2008 | /s/ Herbert
  M. Allison, Jr.                      
| |                         |                                                    
| |                         | Herbert M.
  Allison, Jr.                          
| |                         | Chairman of
  the Board, President and Chief       
| |                         | Executive
  Officer, Teachers Insurance and Annuity
| |                         | Association
  of America                           
| |                         |                                                    
| | Dated: March
  20, 2008 | /s/
  Georganne C. Proctor                         
| |                         |                                                    
| |                         | Georganne C.
  Proctor                             
| |                         | Executive
  Vice President and Chief Financial     
| |                         | Officer,
  Teachers Insurance and Annuity          
| |                         | Association
  of America                           

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the TIAA Real Estate Account and will be retained by the Account
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
# C_2014102EN.01002101.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/21

---

Action brought on 30 January 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-48/14)

2014/C 102/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Council Directive 2013/51/Euratom of 22 October 2013 laying down requirements for the protection of the health of the general public with regard to radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Directive 2013/51/Euratom of 22 October 2013 laying down requirements for the protection of the health of the general public with regard to radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption. (1)

1

| — | order Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Parliament puts forward three pleas in law in support of its action.

In the first place, the Parliament claims that the choice of legal basis made by the Council is mistaken, on the ground that the measures covered by the contested directive fall within the responsibilities of the European Union in the field of the protection of the environment, referred to in Article 192 TFEU. Those measures should therefore have been adopted on the basis of that article, following the ordinary legislative procedure, and not on the basis of Articles 31 and 32 EA.

In the second place, the Parliament claims that the contested directive undermines legal certainty in so far as it establishes rules of review and analysis which duplicate those already in force under Directive 98/83/EC. (2)

2

In the final place, the Parliament considers that by adopting the contested directive, the Council infringed the principle of loyal cooperation between the institutions, referred to in Article 13(2) TEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 296, p. 12.

1

(2)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32).

2

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41082

Summary Calendar

 

THEODORE FLANAGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY JAIL,

In its capacity as an 

institution of confinement; 

Et Al,

Defendants,

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY JAIL, 

In its capacity as an 

institution of confinement; JOE

EVANS, In his official capacity as 

Sheriff, Nacogdoches, Texas; MOLLY

BROWN; RODNEY WHITAKE; GINGER HENSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:95-CV-233

- - - - - - - - - -

July 29, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Theodore Flanagan, Texas prisoner # 734335, appeals the

dismissal of his suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Flanagan
No. 97-41082

-2-

contends that he was denied medical care, the recreational yard

is unsafe, and he has been retaliated against for filing a

grievance. We have reviewed the record and Flanagan’s brief and

AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for essentially the same

reasons adopted by the district court. Flanagan v. Nacogdoches

County Jail, No. 9:95-CV-233 (Aug. 11, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HANS KAISER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3740

[February 27, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.801 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 18-007050CF10A.

Hans Kaiser, pro se, Defuniak Springs.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 522.2474 Tolazoline. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains tolazoline hydrochloride equivalent to 100 milligrams (mg) of base activity.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 059399 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in horses* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer slowly by intravenous injection 4 mg per kilogram of body weight or 1.8 mg per pound (4 milliliters (mL) per 100 kilograms or 4 mL per 220 pounds).
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For use in horses when it is desirable to reverse the effects of sedation and analgesia caused by xylazine.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[79 FR 16197, Mar. 25, 2014, as amended at 79 FR 74020, Dec. 15, 2014; 80 FR 13230, Mar. 13, 2015]
From: <Hambrick.Amy@epamail.epa.gov>

To: Amber Allen <Amber.Allen@erg.com>

Date: 12/20/2012 10:12 AM Subject: 2 of 4- FOR THE CISWI RECONSIDERATION DOCKET

MEMO TO CISWI RECONSIDERATION DOCKET:

This attachment documents an EO 12866 meeting on th e Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid W aste Incineration Units; Reconsideration and Proposed Amendments Rule held on 11/10/2011.

Amy Hambrick Fuels and Incineration Group US EPA / OAQPS / Sector Policies and Programs Divis ion
Phone: 919-541-0964



### (See attached file: Boiler MACT-NHSM OMB 11-9-11.pdf) (See attached file: Definition of resonated wood and resi nated trim 10-11.pdf) (See attached file: Wastewater Treatment Residuals Bac kground 10-11.pdf) (See attached file: Final Cumulative Air Burden Economic Impact Summary.pdf) (See attached file: Fisher Study Executive Summary Jobs_9-7-11. pdf) (See attached file: URS AFPA cost Report Aug2011.pdf) (See attached file: 2060-AR15_2011_11_10_PCA_Handout4.pdf) (See attached file: 2060-AR15_2011_11_10_PCA_Handout3.pdf) (See attached file: 2060-AR15_2011_11_10_PCA_Handout2.pdf) (See attached file: 2060-AR15_2011_11_10_PCA_Handout1.pdf)
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.213 If my qualified exemption is withdrawn, under what circumstances would FDA reinstate my qualified exemption? ( a ) If the FDA Division Director in whose division your farm is located (or, in the case of a foreign farm, the Director of the Office of Compliance in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition) determines that the farm has adequately resolved any problems with the conduct and conditions that are material to the safety of the food produced or harvested at such farm, and that continued withdrawal of the exemption is not necessary to protect the public health or prevent or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak, the FDA Division Director in whose division your farm is located (or, in the case of a foreign farm, the Director of the Office of Compliance in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition) will, on his or her own initiative or at the request of a farm, reinstate the qualified exemption.
( b ) You may ask FDA to reinstate a qualified exemption that has been withdrawn under the procedures of this subpart as follows: ( 1 ) Submit a request, in writing, to the FDA Division Director in whose division your farm is located (or, in the case of a foreign farm, the Director of the Office of Compliance in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition); and
( 2 ) Present, in writing, data and information to demonstrate that you have adequately resolved any problems with the conduct and conditions that are material to the safety of the food produced and harvested at your farm, such that continued withdrawal of the exemption is not necessary to protect the public health and prevent or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak.
( c ) If your qualified exemption was withdrawn under § 112.201(a)(1) and FDA later determines, after finishing the active investigation of a foodborne illness outbreak, that the outbreak is not directly linked to your farm, FDA will reinstate your qualified exemption under § 112.5, and FDA will notify you in writing that your exempt status has been reinstated.
( d ) If your qualified exemption was withdrawn under § 112.201(a)(1) and (2) and FDA later determines, after finishing the active investigation of a foodborne illness outbreak, that the outbreak is not directly linked to your farm, FDA will inform you of this finding, and you may ask FDA to reinstate your qualified exemption under § 112.5, in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
[80 FR 74547, Nov. 27, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 16552, Mar. 24, 2020]
§ 520.1120a Haloxon drench. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each packet contains 141.5 grams haloxon.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Special considerations.* Do not use any drug, insecticide, pesticide, or other chemical having cholinesterase-inhibiting activity either simultaneously or within a few days before or after treatment with haloxon.
( d ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.310 of this chapter.
( e ) *Conditions of use in cattle* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Dissolve each packet in 32 fluid ounces of water and administer as follows: For animals weighing up to 100 pounds: 1 ⁄ 2 fluid ounce; for animals weighing 100 to 150 pounds: 3 ⁄ 4 fluid ounce; for animals weighing 150 to 200 pounds: 1 fluid ounce; for animals weighing 200 to 300 pounds: 11 ⁄ 2 fluid ounces; for animals weighing 300 to 450 pounds: 2 fluid ounces; for animals weighing 450 to 700 pounds: 3 fluid ounces; for animals weighing 700 to 1,000 pounds: 4 fluid ounces; for animals weighing 1,000 to 1,200 pounds: 5 fluid ounces; for animals weighing over 1,200 pounds: 6 fluid ounces. Retreat in 3 to 4 weeks.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For control of gastrointestinal roundworms of the genera *Haemonchus, Ostertagia,* *Trichostrongylus,* and *Cooperia.*
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Do not treat dairy animals of breeding age. Do not treat within 1 week of slaughter.
[40 FR 13838, Mar. 27, 1975, as amended at 45 FR 10333, Feb. 15, 1980; 46 FR 48642, Oct. 2, 1981; 61 FR 8873, Mar. 6, 1996; 62 FR 61624, Nov. 19, 1997; 78 FR 28822, May 20, 2014]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50071

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL RAFAEL CAMARENA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-1145

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Manuel Rafael Camarena

raises arguments challenging the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 851 that he

concedes are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998). United States v. Mata, 491 F.3d 237, 245 (5th Cir. 2007). The

Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# C_2014253EN.01002101.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 June 2014 — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S

(Case C-272/14)

2014/C 253/27

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Applicant:

Defendant: Baby Dan A/S

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must spindles with the specific characteristics as described be classified under CN heading 7318 or 8302?

---
Order entered May 3, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 12 - 00776 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF W .R.B. AND B.K.B. , CHILDREN On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 96 - 1245 4 - Z 

### O RDER We GRANT appellee’s May 1, 2013 unopposed motion for leave to file a sur

- reply brief. We ORDER the sur

- reply brief tendered to this Court by appellee on May 1, 2013 filed as of the date of this order.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

EXHIBIT 11 - Statement Re:  Computation of Earnings Per Share

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Three Months Ended        Nine Months Ended
                                              September 30,             September 30,
(In thousands)                             1996        1995(1)       1996      1995(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                        <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>   
Primary
    Average shares outstanding ......      15,800      16,468       16,104      16,484
    Common stock equivalents:
        Net effect of the assumed
        exercise of stock options and
        stock warrants based on
        average market price ........         399         498          406         489
                                          -------     -------      -------     -------

Primary average shares ..............      16,199      16,966       16,510      16,973
                                          =======     =======      =======     =======

Net income applicable to common
    shares ..........................     $ 3,754     $ 4,114      $10,527     $12,244

Primary net income per share ........     $   .23     $   .24      $   .64     $   .72


Fully diluted
    Average shares outstanding ......      15,800      16,468       16,104      16,484
    Common stock equivalents:
        Net effect of the assumed
        exercise of stock options and
        stock warrants based on end
        of period market price ......         420         533          414         506
                                          -------     -------      -------     -------

Fully diluted average shares ........      16,220      17,001       16,518      16,990
                                          =======     =======      =======     =======

Net income applicable to common
    shares ..........................     $ 3,754     $ 4,114      $10,527     $12,244

Fully diluted net income per share ..     $   .23     $   .24      $   .64     $   .72


<FN>
(1)   Share figures for 1995 have been restated for the 10% stock dividend issued in December 1995.

</TABLE>


                                      21
1 C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Xochytl Greer v. Wesley Michael Melcher

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 2 87

- CV

Trial court case number: 2 0 17

- 4 1 80 8

Trial court: 2 45 th District Court of Harris County

A ppellant, Xochytl Greer

, has filed a motion for review of the trial court’s order sustaining the court reporter’s contest to appellant’s statement of inability to pay costs. See

T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 145(g)(1). Because the trial court signed the order on May 3, 2019, appellant’s motion was due to be filed no later than May 13, 2019. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 145(g)(2). Appellant, however, filed her motion in this Court on May 14, 2019.

We may extend the deadline for filing a motion challenging an order under rule 145 “by 15 days if [appellant] demonstrates good cause for the extension in writing.” T EX

. R.

C IV

. P. 145(g)(2). Accordingly, we direct appellant to provide a written response to this order that “demonstrates good cause” to extend the deadline for filing her motion for review of the trial court’s May 3, 2019 order. Appellant’s response is due no later than

7 days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ May 21, 2019

___
To: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Toni Jones/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: Kerry Hewitt <khewitt@biomasspowerassociation.com>

Date: 07/13/2011 03:11PM 

Cc: Bob Cleaves <bob@biomasspowerassociation.com>, Julee Malinowski-Ball <Julee@ppallc.com>, Gary 

Melow <gary.melow@michiganbiomass.com>

Subject: Major Source Boiler MACT and CISWI Rules- Biomass Boilers Hazardous Air Pollutant Emission 

Testing Data 

(See attached file: 2011 07-06 BPA CBEA Biomass Emission Data Compilation for EPA Submittal.XLS) 

(See attached file: 2011 07-12 BPA Manual HAP Test Data Submittal to EPA (final).PDF)

Dear Mr. Shrager—I believe you just spoke with my colleague, Bob Cleaves, concerning an email that we sent EPA 

in error yesterday at 3:33pm, which included both correspondence and an excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet 

was sent in error and included confidential business information not meant to be shared. As discussed, please 

delete the email and the attachments, and instead consider the attachments to this email as the appropriate 

information. Please contact me should you have any questions, and I appreciate your attention to this matter and 

apologize for any inconvenience. 

 

Kerry 

 

Kerry Hewitt

Assistant to Robert E. Cleaves

 

Biomass Power Association

100 Middle Street

P.O. Box 9729

Portland, Maine 04104-5029

 

Direct (207) 228-7375

Fax (207) 774-1127

 

 

Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002     I, Keith A. Meister, Chief Executive Officer (PrincipalExecutive Officer) of American Property Investors, Inc., theGeneral Partner of American Real Estate Partners, L.P. (the“Registrant”), certify that to the best of myknowledge, based upon a review of the American Real EstatePartners, L.P., quarterly report on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2005 of the Registrant (the“Report”):          (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 Registrant.     /s/ Keith A. Meister           Keith A. Meister     Chief Executive Officer of     American Property Investors, Inc.,     the General Partner of     American Real Estate Partners, L.P.Date: August 9, 2005
55
Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
333-46559,   333-46561,   333-46563,  333-46573  33-68806,  33-68808,  33-62631,
33-62633 and  333-40974 of Elcotel,  Inc. on Forms S-8, of our report dated June
20, 2000,  appearing in this  Amendment  No. 1 to Annual  Report on Form 10-K of
Elcotel, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2000.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Tampa, Florida
August 31, 2000