alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   3-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          JAN-03-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               OCT-04-1998
[CASH]                                          10,271
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                    6,002
[ALLOWANCES]                                        63
[INVENTORY]                                      5,351
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                27,857
[PP&E]                                         336,531
[DEPRECIATION]                                 125,663
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                 244,428
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                           42,751
[BONDS]                                         15,289
[COMMON]                                         2,226
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                            2,287
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[OTHER-SE]                                     176,511
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                   244,428
[SALES]                                        289,092 
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               292,056
[CGS]                                          133,090
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                  246,765
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                               2,019  
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                 45,291
[INCOME-TAX]                                    17,594
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                             27,697
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                    27,697
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                     1.52
[EPS-DILUTED]                                     1.48
</TABLE>
39103.

#### WALKER v. THE STATE.

Decided September 13, 1961.

*Casey Thigpen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas A. Hutcheson, Solicitor,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

The charge of being in an intoxicated condition within the curtilage of the dwelling of another and the charge of contributing to the neglect of minor children constituting separate and distinct offenses, although arising out of the same transaction, the trial judge did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to require the State to elect which of the two accusations to proceed upon. See *Howell v. State,*28 Ga. App. 501 (1) (111 SE 676); *Johnson v. State,*36 Ga. App. 108 (1) (135 SE 519); *McIntosh v. State,*116 Ga. 543 (42 SE 793).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.295 Tagetes (Aztec marigold) meal and extract. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive tagetes (Aztec marigold) meal is the dried, ground flower petals of the Aztec marigold (*Tagetes erecta* L.) mixed with not more than 0.3 percent ethoxyquin.
( 2 ) The color additive tagetes (Aztec marigold) extract is a hexane extract of the flower petals of the Aztec marigold (*Tagetes erecta* L.). It is mixed with an edible vegetable oil, or with an edible vegetable oil and a hydrogenated edible vegetable oil, and not more than 0.3 percent ethoxyquin. It may also be mixed with soy flour or corn meal as a carrier.
( b ) *Specifications.* ( 1 ) Tagetes (Aztec marigold) meal is free from admixture with other plant material from *Tageteserecta* L. or from plant material or flowers of any other species of plants.
( 2 ) Tagetes (Aztec marigold) extract shall be prepared from tagetes (Aztec marigold) petals meeting the specifications set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and shall conform to the following additional specifications: Melting point
53.5-55.0 °C. Iodine value
132-145. Saponification value
175-200. Acid value
0.60-1.20. Titer
35.5-37.0 °C. Unsaponifiable matter
23.0 percent-27.0 percent. Hexane residue
Not more than 25 p.p.m.
All determinations, except the hexane residue, shall be made on the initial extract of the flower petals (after drying in a vacuum oven at 60 °C. for 24 hours) prior to the addition of the oils and ethoxyquin. The hexane determination shall be made on the color additive after the addition of the vegetable oils, hydrogenated vegetable oils, and ethoxyquin.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* The color additives tagetes (Aztec marigold) meal and extract may be safely used in chicken feed in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( 1 ) The color additives are used to enhance the yellow color of chicken skin and eggs.
( 2 ) The quantity of the color additives incorporated in the feed is such that the finished feed: ( i ) Is supplemented sufficiently with xanthophyll and associated carotenoids so as to accomplish the intended effect described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
( ii ) Meets the tolerance limitation for ethoxyquin in animal feed prescribed in § 573.380 of this chapter.
( d ) *Labeling requirements.* The label of the color additives and any premixes prepared therefrom shall bear, in addition to the information required by § 70.25 of this chapter: ( 1 ) A statement of the concentrations of xanthophyll and ethoxyquin contained therein.
( 2 ) Adequate directions to provide a final product complying with the limitations prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
( e ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix L

Draft Southeastern Oregon 

Resource Management Plan Amendment 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix L 

Fire History
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix L

L-1 

Introduction

Wildland fires generally occur from June through September within the planning area. Since 1980, the 

planning area has had 1,402 fires burn approximately 3.1 million acres. This averages to 82,190 acres 

each year. Of these fires, lightning caused 70%, humans caused 22%, and the cause of the remaining 8% 

is undetermined. The table below lists the number of fires, total acres burned, and the average fire size per 

fire. 1986 had the most fires: 85, and 2012 had the most acres burned: 804,318. 

The year 2012 should be used as a reference for wildland fire potential. Weather and fuels conditions that 

occur during the summer months support active fire behavior during wildland fire incidents. The majority 

of the acres burned in 2012 are the result of the largest fire in Vale BLM history, Long Draw, at 558,198 

acres.

Table L-1. Fires by year. 

Year Number of Fires Total Acres Average acres/fire

1980 35 32,509 929

1981 34 29,784 876

1982 43 29,407 684

1983 33 72,587 2,200

1984 60 14,580 243

1985 67 172,465 2,574

1986 85 220,443 2,593

1987 47 8,914 190

1988 25 3,211 128

1989 30 4,550 152

1990 28 4,471 160

1991 25 7,358 294

1992 56 6,934 124

1993 10 3,161 316

1994 29 54,197 1,869

1995 33 38,983 1,181

1996 57 141,629 2,485

1997 36 5,602 156

1998 42 16,140 384

1999 41 6,993 171

2000 37 118,010 3,189

2001 57 113,485 1,991

2002 43 88,571 2,060

2003 33 5,958 181

2004 18 579 32

2005 29 34,203 1,179

2006 80 170,584 2,132

2007 40 130,031 3,251

2008 21 26,563 1,265

2009 26 1,964 76

2010 17 490 29

2011 45 30,455 677

2012 24 804,318 33,513

2013 31 136,008 4,387

2014 25 312,203 12,488

2015 15 158,036 10,536

2016 11 82,946 7,541
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix L

L-2 

Year Number of Fires Total Acres Average acres/fire

2017 34 34,911 1,027

Total 1402 3,123,231 103,261

Average 37 82,190 2,717
§ 520.2345b Tetracycline tablets. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains 100, 250, or 500 milligrams of tetracycline (as the hydrochloride).
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use. Dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* 25 milligrams per pound of body weight per day in divided doses every 6 hours.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* Treatment of infections caused by organisms sensitive to tetracycline hydrochloride, such as bacterial gastroenteritis due to *E. coli* and urinary tract infections due to *Staphylococcus* spp. and *E. coli.*
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Administer orally; continue treatment until symptoms of the disease have subsided and temperature is normal for 48 hours; not for use in animals raised for food production; Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[57 FR 37327, Aug. 18, 1992, as amended at 79 FR 28831, May 20, 2014]
# C_2014223EN.01000501.xml

| 14.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 April 2014 — T.A. van Dijk v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-197/14)

2014/C 223/06

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: T.A. van Dijk

Applicant:

Other party to the proceedings: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party to the proceedings:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Is the Hoge Raad, as the highest national court, required, because of a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a lower national court, to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or must it await the answer to that question referred by the lower national court, even if it takes the view that the correct application of EU law on the matter to be decided by it is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to how that question must be answered? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Is the Hoge Raad, as the highest national court, required, because of a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a lower national court, to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or must it await the answer to that question referred by the lower national court, even if it takes the view that the correct application of EU law on the matter to be decided by it is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to how that question must be answered?

| 2) | If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, are the Netherlands authorities in the area of social security then bound by an E 101 certificate issued by the authorities of another Member State, even where the case involves a Rhine boatman, with the result that the rules on the applicable legislation in Regulation No 1408/71, (1) to which that certificate refers, are not applicable pursuant to Article 7(2)(a) of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2)

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, are the Netherlands authorities in the area of social security then bound by an E 101 certificate issued by the authorities of another Member State, even where the case involves a Rhine boatman, with the result that the rules on the applicable legislation in Regulation No 1408/71, (1) to which that certificate refers, are not applicable pursuant to Article 7(2)(a) of that regulation?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1971 (II), p. 416).

1

---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00247-CV

CITY OF MILFORD,

Appellant

v.

NESTOR CALDERON, JR.,

Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 79,293

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, City of Milford, filed a notice of appeal from an adverse judgment 

issued by the trial court. Now, City of Milford has filed an unopposed motion to 

dismiss the appeal. In the motion, City of Milford requests that we dismiss the appeal 

and remand the case back to the trial court for completion of the dismissal process.

We are not permitted by the Rules of Appellate Procedure to dismiss the appeal 

and remand the case. Accordingly, we grant City of Milford’s motion in part, set aside 

the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits, and remand the case to the trial 

court for further proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).
City of Milford v. Calderon Page 2

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Judgment set aside and remanded

Opinion delivered and filed December 8, 2010

[CV06]
Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO

# 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

# AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Penn Treaty
American Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Mark Cloutier, Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that to the best of my knowledge:

|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 fully
          complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
          Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
          period ended June 30, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
          Companys financial condition and results of operations.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                         |  |                          
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------
|Date:    August 13, 2004 |  | /s/  Mark Cloutier       
|                         |  | Mark Cloutier            
|                         |  | Senior Vice President and
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-2409

_____________________________

TIMOTHY LUCIER, an individual,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAMS DAIRY TRUCKING,

INC., a foreign for-profit 

corporation, ALEXANDER JUNIOR 

BROOKS, MICHAEL DEVON 

MILLER, and, MARIA MARCELL 

YOUNG, as individuals,

Respondents.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

August 8, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Fla. R. 

App. P. 9.100(c)(1).

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jordan Redavid of Fischer Redavid PLLC, Hollywood, for 

Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondents.
<PAGE>



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


  As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our respective reports (such reports are listed below), with
respect to the financial statements of Meridian Industrial Trust, Inc. and the
historical combined financial statements of the Merged Trusts, in the
Registration Statement and the related Prospectus of Meridian Industrial Trust,
Inc. on Form S-3 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
April 4, 1997.  The reports referred to above are as follows:

-   Meridian Industrial Trust, Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and for
    the period from May 18, 1995 (inception) to December 31, 1995 and the year
    ended December 31, 1996; report of independent public accountants dated
    February 5, 1997.

-   Merged Trusts Historical Combined for the period from January 1, 1996 to
    February 23, 1996, and as of December 31, 1995 and 1994 and for each of the
    three years in the period ended December 31, 1995; report of independent
    public accountants dated May 27, 1996.


                                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



San Francisco, California
April 3, 1997
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.1530 Spirulina extract. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive spirulina extract is prepared by the filtered aqueous extraction of the dried biomass of *Arthrospira platensis.* The color additive contains phycocyanins as the principal coloring components.
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures for drug use made with spirulina extract may contain only those diluents that are suitable and are listed in this subpart as safe for use in color additive mixtures for coloring ingested drugs.
( b ) *Specifications.* Spirulina extract must conform to the following specifications and must be free from impurities, other than those named, to the extent that such other impurities may be avoided by good manufacturing practice: ( 1 ) Lead, not more than 2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (2 parts per million (ppm));
( 2 ) Arsenic, not more than 2 mg/kg (2 ppm);
( 3 ) Mercury, not more than 1 mg/kg (1 ppm); and
( 4 ) Negative for microcystin toxin.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* Spirulina extract may be safely used for coloring coating formulations applied to drug tablets and capsules, at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice.
( d ) *Labeling requirements.* The label of the color additive and any mixture prepared therefrom intended solely or in part for coloring purposes shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
[80 FR 50765, Aug. 21, 2015]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1999
<CASH>                                           8,265
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,977
<ALLOWANCES>                                        11
<INVENTORY>                                      6,357
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,275
<PP&E>                                         380,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 139,764 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 269,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,004
<BONDS>                                         13,596
<COMMON>                                         2,234
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,331
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     197,510
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   269,863
<SALES>                                        117,536 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               118,397 
<CGS>                                           51,610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,272
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,565
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,381
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7423 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7423

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 103 Benedette Street in Rayville, Louisiana, as the ``Luke Letlow 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LUKE LETLOW POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 103 Benedette Street in Rayville, Louisiana, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Luke Letlow Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Luke 
Letlow Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 7423

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 103 Benedette Street in Rayville, Louisiana, as the ``Luke Letlow 
                        Post Office Building''.
```
# C_2014184EN.01004502.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/45

---

Action brought on 1 April 2014 — ZZ v ESMA

(Case F-32/14)

2014/C 184/76

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary agent contract as a consequence of the negative appraisal report, annulment of the above mentioned appraisal report and a claim of damages.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision ESMA/2013/ED/33 concerning the non-renewal of the employment contract as well as the appraisals for 2011 and 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision ESMA/2013/ED/33 concerning the non-renewal of the employment contract as well as the appraisals for 2011 and 2012;

| — | order the defendant to pay an amount of 10.000 EUR as damages for the endured non-material harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of 10.000 EUR as damages for the endured non-material harm;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---