alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 556.113 Ceftiofur. ( a ) *Acceptable daily intake and acute reference dose* — ( 1 ) *Acceptable daily intake (ADI).* The ADI for total residue of ceftiofur is 30 μg/kg of body weight per day.
( 2 ) *Acute reference dose (ARfD).* The ARfD for total residue of ceftiofur is 0.830 mg/kg of body weight.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for desfuroylceftiofur (marker residue) are: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* ( i ) Kidney (target tissue): 0.4 ppm.
( ii ) Liver: 2 ppm.
( iii ) Muscle: 1 ppm.
( iv ) Milk: 0.1 ppm.
( 2 ) *Chickens and turkeys.* Edible tissues (excluding eggs): Not required.
( 3 ) *Goats.* ( i ) Kidney (target tissue): 8 ppm.
( ii ) Liver: 2 ppm.
( iii ) Muscle: 1 ppm.
( iv ) Milk: 0.1 ppm.
( 4 ) *Sheep.* Edible tissues (excluding milk): Not required.
( 5 ) *Swine.* ( i ) Kidney (target tissue): 0.25 ppm.
( ii ) Liver: 3 ppm.
( iii ) Muscle: 2 ppm.
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See §§ 522.313a, 522.313b, 522.313c, and 526.313 of this chapter.
# C_2014135EN.01002002.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Rafael Villafáñez Gallego and María Pérez Anguio v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

(Case C-54/14)

2014/C 135/23

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 34 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rafael Villafáñez Gallego and María Pérez Anguio

Applicants:

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | On a proper construction of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13, (1) must an agreement between a bank and an individual consumer be held to be individually negotiated when, as well as altering the conditions on the limiting of interest rates, it imposes on the consumer the costs of amending the authentic instrument of loan and mortgage executed by the bank and the consumer, and when that agreement was proposed by the bank as one of the possible alternatives for altering the financial terms of the loan and was voluntarily accepted by the consumer following an agreement reached after negotiations between the bank and a mutual society of which the consumer is a member in the interests and to the benefit of the members of that mutual society? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On a proper construction of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13, (1) must an agreement between a bank and an individual consumer be held to be individually negotiated when, as well as altering the conditions on the limiting of interest rates, it imposes on the consumer the costs of amending the authentic instrument of loan and mortgage executed by the bank and the consumer, and when that agreement was proposed by the bank as one of the possible alternatives for altering the financial terms of the loan and was voluntarily accepted by the consumer following an agreement reached after negotiations between the bank and a mutual society of which the consumer is a member in the interests and to the benefit of the members of that mutual society?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative, is Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, to be interpreted, with regard to the unfairness of the term, as precluding an agreement such as that described in the first question, having regard to the purpose and object of the agreement between the bank and the mutual society? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, is Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, to be interpreted, with regard to the unfairness of the term, as precluding an agreement such as that described in the first question, having regard to the purpose and object of the agreement between the bank and the mutual society?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

1

---
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 159TH DISTRICT COURT OF ANGELINA COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 22nd

day of July, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

JOCK COLBY DOMINEY, Appellant

NO. 12-14-00226-CR; Trial Court No. 2014-0069

Opinion by Greg Neeley, Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 15th day of September, 2015.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  EXHIBIT 32.1
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the  quarterly  report of Avitar,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on
Form10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Peter P.  Phildius,
Chief Executive  Officer of the Company certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to
my knowledge, that:

     (1) The Report  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)
or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: May 13, 2005

                                                 /s/ Peter P. Phildius
                                                 ---------------------
                                                 Peter P. Phildius Chief
                                                 Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.4

[Letterhead]

Report of Independent Accountants

Dayton Hudson Corporation,
its Officers and Directors
    and
Dayton Hudson Receivables Corporation,
its Officers and Directors
As Transferor
    and
Retailers National Bank,
its Officers and Directors
As Servicer
    and
Norwest Bank, National Association
As Trustee

We
have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, the statements of financial condition of Retailers National Bank ("the Bank"), as of
December 31, 1999 and 1998 and the related statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended and have issued our report thereon dated January 24, 2000.

Our
audit, referred to in the preceding paragraph, included procedures applied to the documents and records relating to the servicing of credit card receivables under the Dayton
Hudson Credit Card Master Trust Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("the Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of September 13, 1995. Our procedures were as follows:

Documents
and records relating to the servicing of credit card receivables under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement:

---



The
results of the procedures described above provided satisfactory evidential matter for the purposes of our audit of the financial statements, referred to in the introductory
paragraph of this letter, taken as a whole.

This
report is intended solely for the use of the specified users listed above and should not be used by those who have not agreed to the procedures and taken responsibility for the
sufficiency of the procedures for their purposes. However, this report is a matter of public record, as a result of inclusion as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by Dayton
Hudson Receivables Corporation on behalf of the Trust, and its distribution is not limited.

| |  | Very truly yours,    
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

January
24, 2000

---
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MARCH 10, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 10-11682

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 3:09-cr-00111-RV-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALIRIO SILVA-MONTOYA,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(March 10, 2011)

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Gwendolyn Spivey, appointed counsel for Alirio Silva-Montoya in this

direct criminal appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation
of the appellant, because counsel believes that the appeal is without merit. Counsel

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Our independent review of the record reveals that counsel’s assessment of

the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no arguably meritorious issues of merit, counsel’s motion to

withdraw is GRANTED, and Silva-Montoya’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

2
#### Joe E. Eastabrooks, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eva Ravlin and Aurora National Bank, Defendants-Appellants.

Gen. No. 68-190.

Second District.

June 12, 1969.

John G. Plain, of Aurora, for appellants; Redman, Shearer & O’Brien, of St. Charles, for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE SEIDENFELD.

Not to be published in full.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GULFWEST OIL
COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT FILED ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEP-30-96
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000813779
<NAME>                        0
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    0
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        138,907
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 265,772
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              434,146
<PP&E>                        4,075,317
<DEPRECIATION>                (1,064,939)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                3,952,251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,464,656
<BONDS>                       0         
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0                 
<PREFERRED>                   402,103                 
<COMMON>                      1,518                      
<OTHER-SE>                    1,176,887                 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  3,952,251                 
<SALES>                       757,937                
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              899,846                
<CGS>                         0                
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,474,928                 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0                
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0                
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            (172,671)                
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (720,926)                
<INCOME-TAX>                  0                
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (720,926)                
<DISCONTINUED>                0                
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0                
<CHANGES>                     0                
<NET-INCOME>                  (720,926)                
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (.61)                
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.61)                
        


</TABLE>
[Nos. 36043-4-I; 37591-1-I.

Division One.

October 27, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Robert Arthur Hamilton, *Appellant. In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of*Robert A. Hamilton, *Petitioner.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-04673-6, James A. Noe, J., entered January 13, 1995, together with a petition for relief from personal restraint. Judgment *affirmed*and petition *denied*by unpublished opinion per Agid, J., concurred in by Kennedy, A.C.J., and Cox, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN TCI PACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON
FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             715
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         462,531
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,339,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        898,977
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          629,739
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     720,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,339,761
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               128,303
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,146
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,892)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (779)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,113)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,113)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. 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-Torresv. Unite d States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). U nite

d States v. Mata, 491 F.3d 237, 245 (5th Cir. 2007). The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and thejudgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
§ 1316.54 Prehearing conference. The presiding officer on his own motion, or on the motion of any party for good cause shown, may direct all parties to appear at a specified time and place for a conference for: ( a ) The simplification of the issues.
( b ) The possibility of obtaining stipulations, admission of facts, and documents.
( c ) The possibility of limiting the number of expert witnesses.
( d ) The identification and, if practicable, the scheduling of all witnesses to be called.
( e ) The advance submission at the prehearing conference of all documentary evidence and affidavits to be marked for identification.
( f ) Such other matters as may aid in the expeditious disposition of the hearing.
EPA’s Administrative Record for Kansas SWMP Approval (Numbered)

October 19, 2015

1. 7/1/15 Correspondence f rom Kansas to R7 including draft SWMP for preliminary

review

2. Draft SWMP dated 6/30/15

3. 7/1/15 Correspondence from Kansas to R7 asking for 30 day public comment period

4. 7/22/15 Correspondence f rom R7 to Kansas containing an update on review

5. 7/22/15 Correspondence f rom Kansas to R7 regarding review update

6. 8/6/15 Correspondence f rom R7 to Kansas including EPA’s comments on draft SWMP

7. Draft Part 256 Checklist

8. 8 /10/15 Correspondence f rom Kansas to R7 email asking about typo in our comments

(FR page numbers)

9. 8/10/15 Correspondence from R7 to Kansas clarifying the typo (FR page numbers)

10. 8/18/15 From Kansas to R7 email requesting clarification of specific commen ts

11. 8/25/15 Correspondence from R7 to Kansas clarifying specific comments from the

8/18/15 email

12. 8/25/15 Submittal from Kansas to R7 of proposed SWMP for “final” preliminary review

(5 attachments)

13. Proposed Part 256 CCR Plan with the all appendices dated 8 /24 /15

14. Proposed Part 256 CCR Plan without the appendices

15. A comparison document of the August (proposed) and June (draft) Part 256 CCR

plans

16. KDHE’s Response to EPA’s comments on the draft Part 256 CCR plan

17. Public hearing notice

18. 10/7/15 Official submittal of SWMP for EPA Approval, from Kansas to R7 with 3

attachment

19. Final version of the Kansas Coal Combustions Residuals Part 256 Plan dated 9/29/15

20. The hearing officers report, including KDHE’s “Responsiveness Summary” related to

received public comments on the CCR Plan

21. The CCR Plan adoption statement signed on October 7, 2015 by the Secretary of KDHE

22. 10/19/15 Approval letter from R7 to Kansas

23. Final Part 256 Checklist
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                APR-2-2000
<CASH>                                         618,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,004,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   102,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,310,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,938,000
<PP&E>                                     128,308,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              42,644,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             103,072,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,755,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,866,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               103,072,000
<SALES>                                     40,033,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,117,000
<CGS>                                       11,691,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,504,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,910,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             813,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,890,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   520,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,370,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                           CONSENT OF J. H. COHN LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amended Annual Report on 
Form 10-K/A, which is being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
by NHP Incorporated ("NHP"), of our report dated April 26, 1995 with respect 
to our audit of the financial statements of Marlboro Greens Limited 
Partnership for the years ended December 31, 1994 and 1993, and the 
incorporation by reference of such report into NHP's Registration Statement 
on Form S-8 (No. 333-11933), NHP's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 
333-11863), NHP's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-11917), NHP's 
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-11857) and NHP's Registration 
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-08137).

                                  /s/ J. H. Cohn LLP


                                  J. H. COHN LLP


Roseland, New Jersey
October 3, 1997
<PAGE>   1



                                                              EXHIBIT 11.1


                                 SPYGLASS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE (1)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Year Ended September 30,
                                          ----------------------------------
                                             1996        1995        1994
                                           --------    --------    --------
<S>                                       <C>         <C>         <C>
    Net income                            $3,460,000  $2,176,000  $1,384,000
                                          ----------  ----------  ----------

    Weighted average shares outstanding:
        Common stock                      11,618,800   8,272,876   3,318,952
        Redeemable convertible preferred
          stock                                    -           -   3,448,000
        Common stock equivalents
            calculated by treasury stock
            method applied to option,
            and warrants issued (2)        1,219,292   1,150,542     918,470
                                          ----------  ----------  ----------

    Weighted average common shares and
               equivalents                12,838,062   9,423,418   7,685,422
                                          ----------  ----------  ----------

    Net income per share                       $0.27       $0.23       $0.18
</TABLE>



        (1) - This exhibit should be read in conjunction with "Summary
        of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies-Per Share
        Information" in Note 1 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial
        Statements.

        (2) - Stock options granted prior to the beginning of each
        reporting period have been included in the calculation of common stock
        equivalents as if they were outstanding for the entire period (using
        the treasury stock method).