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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         138,469
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,708,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,392
<INVENTORY>                                  3,001,519
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,626,998
<PP&E>                                       2,023,294
<DEPRECIATION>                                 697,236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,934,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,410,553
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,520
<COMMON>                                        74,973
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,813,806
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,934,967
<SALES>                                     51,235,126
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            51,235,126
<CGS>                                       44,667,482
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               44,667,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,822,729
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             957,207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,812,937)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (510,129)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,302,808)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (7,133,152)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,435,960)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.29)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014194EN.01001101.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 March 2014 — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

(Case C-131/14)

2014/C 194/13

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino

Appellants:

Respondents: Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

Respondents:

Question referred

Question referred

On a proper construction of Regulations No 1047/2001 (1) and No 2988/95, (2) is conduct such as that engaged in by Community operator A (Malvi sas) prohibited, and does it constitute an abuse of law and conduct designed to evade tax, where Community operator A (Malvi sas) — a company which does not hold an import licence or which has exhausted its own quota share — purchases certain consignments of goods from another Community operator B (Tonini Roberto & C sas), which in turn has purchased them from a third-country supplier (Bananaservice srl), the goods being transferred as foreign stocks to another Community operator C (L’Olivo Maria) — a company which holds a licence under the quota because it meets the requisite criteria — which, without transferring its own licence, releases the goods for free circulation in the European Union in order to transfer them, after customs clearance and in return for appropriate remuneration, lower than the specific duty for imports outside the quota, to operator B (Tonini Roberto & C sas), which finally sells them to operator A (Malvi sas)?

1

2

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001 of 30 May 2001 introducing a system of import licences and certificates of origin and establishing the method for managing tariff quotas for garlic imported from third countries (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 35).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

2

---
## 1997 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-23-1997 

# Y esk ey v . P A D ept C or r ec t ions P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 96-7292

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1997

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

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1997 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Y e skey v . P A D e pt C or r e ct ion s " (1997). 1997 D e cisio n s . P ape r 165. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1997/165

## γΙεΖζ

/! Ι
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8558

MICHAEL WAYNE MONTGOMERY, a/k/a Shaka Zulu X,

a/k/a Thomas Edward Howard,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LAURA BESSINGER, Warden/Head Administrator,

Kirkland Correctional Institute; CAPTAIN

JACKSON, Captain over other Security Staff at

Kirkland Correctional Institute; NURSE STANLEY, Nurse, Maximum Security Unit, Kirkland

Correctional Institute; LIEUTENANT DAVIS,

Second Shift Supervisor at Maximum Security

Unit of Kirkland Correctional Institute;

DOCTOR NEAL, Physician, Kirkland Correctional

Institute; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South

Carolina Department of Corrections; B. LYMORE,

Sergeant, Kirkland Correctional Institute; B.

RUTHERFORD, Correctional Officer, Kirkland

Correctional Institute, Maximum Security Unit;

DWAYNE WALKER, Correctional Officer, Kirkland

Correctional Institute, Maximum Security Unit;

VAUGHN JACKSON, Captain; LIEUTENANT MARTIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-93-896-6-3AK, CA-93-909-6-3AK, CA-93-2158-6-3AK, CA-93-

2159-6-3AK, CA-94-247-6-3AK)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 31, 1996
2

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Wayne Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson,

II, Andrew Frederick Lindemann, Elizabeth Krawcheck Rodgers, ELLIS,

LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Montgomery v.

Bessinger, Nos. CA-93-896-6-3AK; CA-93-909-6-3AK; CA-93-2158-6-3AK;

CA-2159-6-3AK; CA-94-247-6-3AK (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**808 CA 11-00214**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

COUNTY OF ERIE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

GATEWAY-LONGVIEW, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

CARTER, CONBOY, CASE, BLACKMORE, MALONEY & LAIRD, P.C., ALBANY (WILLIAM J. DECAIRE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MARTIN A. POLOWY, ACTING COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID J. SLEIGHT OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Dillon, J.), entered May 3, 2010 in a declaratory judgment action. The order denied the motion of defendant Gateway-Longview, Inc. to dismiss the complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 23.1

                    [KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP LETTERHEAD]


The Board of Directors
ProSource, Inc.:


          We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statement (No. 333-36849 and 333-36851) on Form S-8 of ProSource, Inc. of our
report dated February 20, 1998, relating to the consolidated blance sheets of
ProSource, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 27, 1997, and December 28,
1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations, retained earnings,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
27, 1997, and all related schedules, which report appears in the December 27,
1997, annual report on Form 10-K of ProSource, Inc.

          Our report refers to a change in accounting method of capitalization
of business process reengineering activities in the fourth quarter of 1997.   
         

                                     /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

                                     KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


March 2, 1998


                                       68
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF****THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, James V. Gorman, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the AnnualReport onForm 10-K/A ofNational Atlantic Holdings Corporation (the“Registrant”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport.     /s/ James V. Gorman       Name: James V. Gorman Title:    Chief Executive OfficerDated: April 11, 2006
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Pension Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Benefits for Survivors, Winter 1960-61 :

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Pension Plans Under Collective Bargaining: Benefits for Survivors, Winter 1960-61 : : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1334*,										August 1962,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4809,			accessed on September 26, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

April 11, 2008

Mr. Richard N. Countiss

Countiss Law Firm

8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 600

Houston, TX 77017-5051

Mr. Roger A. Berger

Uzick Oncken Scheuerman & Berger

238 Westcott

Houston, TX 77007

RE:Case Number:  07-0312

Court of Appeals Number:  01-06-00350-CV

Trial Court Number:  2005-34257

Style:LOU VIRGINIA DANOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF RYAN COCHRAN, A MINOR

v.

KEVIN RITTGER, M.D.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0312Page 1**
Filed 2/8/16 P. v. Salary CA4/3

Received for posting 2/9/16

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DAVIS SALARY,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G051925

 (Super. Ct. No. 13CF0860)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, 

Christopher Evans, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Dismissed 

as moot.

Elizabeth Garfinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Davis Salary (Defendant) filed a notice of appeal from a postjudgment 

order granting in part and denying in part his application under Penal Code 
2

section 1170.18 for a recall of sentence on his felony conviction and to designate that 

conviction as a misdemeanor. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we 

review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 

appointed counsel provided issues to assist us in conducting our independent review. 

Defendant was granted 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf, but did not do 

so. 

In an order entered on July 29, 2015, the trial court changed Defendant’s 

sentence on the count for possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11377, subd. (a)) to 364 days and changed Defendant’s total credits to 28 months. The 

court found that Defendant’s total credits exceeded the total sentence, including 

confinement time and the period of parole, and therefore immediately discharged 

Defendant from parole and deemed all fines to have been paid in full. 

We issued an order stating that, in light of the trial court’s July 29, 2015 

order, the appeal may be moot or abandoned by Defendant. We announced our intention

to dismiss the appeal absent objection from either party. Neither party filed an objection 

by the deadline set forth in our order. The July 29, 2015 order afforded Defendant all the 

relief he could obtain and we could offer by appeal. (In re Miranda (2011) 191 

Cal.App.4th 757, 762.) The appeal is therefore dismissed. 

FYBEL, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IKOLA, J.

THOMPSON, J.
COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 

___________________________________________________________________

NO. 03-15-00229-CV

___________________________________________________________________

AZIZ SHAKARZAHI and ILIA SHAKARZAHI, 

 

Appellants, 

vs.

RAYMOND MALOOLY; ALAN MALOOLY; MALOOLY CORPORATION; PEBBLE HILLS 

PLAZA, LTD.; ASLM, LTD.; ASLM II, LTD.; JANUARY 2K, LTD.; and FEDERAL 

ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, 

Appellees. 

___________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL OF APPELLEES 

___________________________________________________________________ 

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 6.1, Appellees Raymond Malooly; Alan Malooly; 

Malooly Corporation; Pebble Hills Plaza, Ltd.; ASLM, Ltd.; ASLM II, Ltd.; January 

2K, Ltd.; and Federal Acceptance Corporation hereby designate S. Anthony Safi as 

their lead appellate counsel. David M. Mirazo will remain as an attorney of 

record, but Mr. Safi shall serve as lead appellate counsel. Mr. Safi's contact 

information is as follows: 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00229-CV

6067014

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

7/14/2015 5:13:38 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/14/2015 5:13:38 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

S. Anthony Safi

State Bar No. 17516800

safi@mgmsg.com

Mounce, Green, Myers, Safi, Paxson & Galatzan

A Professional Corporation

P. O. Box 1977

El Paso, Texas 79999-1977

Street Address: 100 N. Stanton, Suite 1000 (79901)

Tel. No. (915) 532-2000

Fax No. (915) 541-1548

Mr. Safi will assume the role as Lead Counsel for Appellees; notice is 

provided to opposing counsel as per Tex. R. App. P. 6.1(c).
3

Respectfully submitted, 

S. Anthony Safi

State Bar No. 17516800

David M. Mirazo

State Bar No. 24044610

Merwan N. Bhatti

State Bar No. 24064896

MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI, 

PAXSON & GALATZAN

A Professional Corporation

P. O. Box 1977

El Paso, Texas 79999-1977

(915) 532-2000

Fax No. (915) 541-1548

By: ___/s/ S. Anthony Safi______

S. Anthony Safi

By: ___/s/ David M. Mirazo______

David M. Mirazo

Attorneys for Appellees

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 14

th day of July, 2015, I electronically filed the 

foregoing notice of designation of lead counsel with the Clerk of the Court using 

the e-filing system service provider, which will serve a copy of same on Norberto 

Flores, Flores Law Firm, P. O. Box 342192, Austin, Texas 78734-0037

(ntexaslaw@outlook.com).

___/s/ S. Anthony Safi____________

S. Anthony Safi

1217108/SAS/14174-113
§ 573.304 Chromium propionate. The food additive chromium propionate may be safely used in animal feed as a source of supplemental chromium in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The additive is manufactured by the reaction of a chromium salt with propionic acid, at an appropriate stoichiometric ratio, to produce triaqua-(mu3-oxo) hexakis (mu2-propionato-*O,O*′) trichromium propionate with the empirical formula, [Cr3(O)(CH3CH2CO2)6(H2O)3]CH3CH2CO2.
( b ) The additive is added to feed as follows: ( 1 ) In complete feed for broiler chickens and growing turkeys at a level not to exceed 0.2 milligrams (mg) of chromium from chromium propionate per kilogram feed.
( 2 ) In feed for horses at a level not to exceed an intake of 4 mg of chromium from chromium propionate per horse per day.
( c ) The additive meets the following specifications: ( 1 ) Total chromium content, 8 to 10 percent.
( 2 ) Hexavalent chromium content, less than 2 parts per million (ppm).
( 3 ) Arsenic, less than 1 ppm.
( 4 ) Cadmium, less than 1 ppm.
( 5 ) Lead, less than 0.5 ppm.
( 6 ) Mercury, less than 0.5 ppm.
( 7 ) Viscosity, not more than 2,000 centipoise.
( d ) The additive shall be incorporated into feed as follows: ( 1 ) It shall be incorporated into each ton of feed by adding no less than one pound of a premix containing no more than 181.4 milligrams of added chromium from chromium propionate per pound.
( 2 ) The premix manufacturer shall follow good manufacturing practices in the production of chromium propionate premixes. Inventory, production, and distribution records must provide a complete and accurate history of product production.
( 3 ) Chromium from all sources of supplemental chromium cannot exceed: ( i ) A level of 0.2 ppm in complete feed for broiler chickens and growing turkeys.
( ii ) An intake of 4 mg per horse per day.
( e ) To assure safe use of the additive in addition to the other information required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: ( 1 ) The label and labeling of the additive, any feed premix, and feed shall contain the name of the additive.
( 2 ) The label and labeling of the additive and any feed premix shall also contain: ( i ) A guarantee for added chromium content.
( ii ) Adequate directions for use and cautions for use including these statements: “Caution: Follow label directions” and consistent with the directions for use, the following: ( A ) For feed for broiler chickens and growing turkeys, “Chromium from all sources of supplemental chromium cannot exceed 0.2 parts per million of the complete feed.”
( B ) For feed for horses, “Chromium from all sources of supplemental chromium cannot exceed 4 milligrams per horse per day.”
[81 FR 35611, June 3, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 14566, Mar. 13, 2020; 85 FR 48650, Aug. 12, 2020; 89 FR 5768, Jan. 30, 2024]