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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                           6,271
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,377
<INVENTORY>                                     33,435
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,537
<PP&E>                                          82,883
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 342,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,149
<BONDS>                                        220,261
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            80
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   342,463
<SALES>                                        175,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,637
<CGS>                                          118,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,501
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,590
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,201
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,389
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  5,107
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,282
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
        

</TABLE>
BOBBY JINDAL

GOVERNOR

PEGGY M. HATCH

SECRETARY

~tate of J'Louigiana

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

APR 7 2010

Mr. Charles Faultry

Associate Director, Superfund Remedial Branch

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, IX 75202-2733

Re: Concurrence of Site Deletion From the National Priorities List

Ruston Foundry Superfund Site, AI Number 12443

1010 Bogan Street, Alexandria, Rapides Parish, LA

Dear Mr. Faultry:

The Louisiana Department of Environmental QualitylRemediation Services Division (LDEQIRSD)

is in receipt of the Site Deletion From the National Priorities Report dated February 26, 20 10.

Thank you for providing this information.

Based on the information provided, LDEQ/RSD concurs with the information found in aforementioned document.

You may contact Wanda Ballou at (225) 219-3223 with any questions. Please continue to address

any future correspondence with the Al number to: Thomas F. Harris, Administrator;

Remediation Services Division; P. O. Box 4314; Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4314.

Thank you for your support and assistance in addressing this site.

Sincerely,

Thomas F. Harris, Administrator

Remediation Services Division

c: Imaging Operations lAS

POSt Office Box 4313 • Bawn Rc)ug~, J..o\li~i1l.na 70821·4313 • Phont 225-21 ~)·3181 • Fax 225-219-3309

W"\lI'JJ.ri(".(l.lt"'IIl1.~i~o~ ('T()v

000110
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin
J. Cullum, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Receivables 2015-B Owner Trust
(the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am
responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the
following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association

Date: June 26, 2018



By:

/s/ Kevin J. CullumKevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Corporation(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 9 MONTHS ENDING
SEPTEMBER 26, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
FORM 10Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000813856
<NAME> PRANDIUM, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1999
<CASH>                                           3,715
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,273
<PP&E>                                         296,487
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,180
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 335,860
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,979
<BONDS>                                        267,597
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,804
<OTHER-SE>                                    (45,330)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   335,860
<SALES>                                        408,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               408,837
<CGS>                                          107,970
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  407,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,063
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,971)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       441
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,412)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,412)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7516

JOHN NORFLEET WARD, III, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-00-353-2) Submitted: February 27, 2002 Decided: May 14, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Norfleet Ward, III, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Norfleet Ward, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Ward v. Angelone , No. CA-00- 353-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2001). Furthermore, while we grant Ward’s motion “to include newly discovered evidence for review with appeal,” our review of those materials does not alter our conclusion. 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10845-10846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4899]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY


Subcommittee on Forensic Science; Committee on Science; National 
Science and Technology Council

ACTION: General Notice. Nominations for Interagency Working Group 
participants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Subcommittee on Forensic Science of the National Science 
and Technology Council's (NSTC's) Committee on Science is now accepting 
nominations for Interagency Working Group participants. Nominees must 
be a State, local, or tribal government elected officer (or their 
designated employee with authority to act on their behalf).

DATES AND ADDRESSES: The Subcommittee must receive all nominations for 
Interagency Working Group participants by 5 p.m. EDT March 12, 2010. 
Nominations should be submitted via electronic mail (e-mail) to

[[Page 10846]]

Robin W. Jones, Executive Secretary, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d183beb3b8bfff86ff9bbebfb4a291a4a2b5bebbffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90c2fff2f9febec7bedafffef5e3d0e5e3f4fffabef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kenneth E. Melson,
Co-Chair, Subcommittee on Forensic Science.
[FR Doc. 2010-4899 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
First Mariner Bancorp:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-60961, 333-60963 and 333-60967) on Form S-8 of First Mariner Bancorp
and subsidiaries (First Mariner) of our report dated January 28, 2000, relating
to the consolidated statements of financial condition of First Mariner as of
December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in the December
31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of First Mariner.

                                         /s/ KPMG LLP
                                         ----------------------------------
                                         KPMG LLP

Baltimore, Maryland
March 29, 2000

                                       21
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ebix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robin Raina, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


By:/s/ Robin RainaName: Robin RainaChief Executive Officer


August 9, 2011
#### GUILLERMO ALVAREZ Y SANCHEZ v. THE UNITED STATES.

[42 C. Cls., 458;

216 U. S. R., 167.]

*On the claimant's appeal.*

The petition sets up these facts: The claimant, a subject of Spain, living in Porto Rico, purchases a purchasable office in per- ■ petuity (that of procurador of the-courts) and receives a patent for the office approved by the King of Spain. After the treaty with Spain in 1S9S the military governor of the island issues a general order whereby the office of procurador is abolished and the claimant deprived of it. The chief question in the case is whether the office held in perpetuity was a property right secured to the claimant by the treaty.

The court below decides:

I. The order of the military governor of Porto Rico in 1899 abolishing the office of solicitor or procurator was not a tortious act, though it deprived the claimant of an office. The court has jurisdiction of a suit to recover the value of the office.

.II. Such a claim arises out of the act of a public officer and not out of the treaty with Spain, and the court is not inhibited from exercising jurisdiction by the Revised Statutes, § 1066.

III. The *Treaty of Paris, 10th December, 1898*(30 Stat. L., p. 1751), provides (Art. VIII) that the cession of the island to the United States “ *cam- not in any respect, impair the property or , rights which by law belong to the peaceful possession of prop*
      *610
      *erty of all hinds.”*But this did not prevent the military governor of the island from abolishing a public office because it was purchasable and held in perpetuity under the laws of Spain, nor did it prevent the Government of the United States from ratifying the order of the military governor by the *Act mil April, 1900*(31 Stat L., p. 77).

IY. When Porto Rico passed into the possession of the United States the sovereignty of Spain passed with it; and the inhabitants became subject to the will of the United States, though their private rights and their relations to each other remain unchanged.

V.When the treaty with Spain was negotiated the principle of *uti possidetis*was recognized; and there being no stipulation in the treaty to the contrary, the property of the sovereignty of Spain, including public offices, passed to the Government of the United States.

VI.The cession of the island to the United States imposed no obligation to indemnify the inhabitants for losses caused thereby.

VII.An office purchasable and held in perpetuity may have possessed a property right under the laws of Spain; but when the office passed to and became an office of the United States the right of property therein ceased and disappeared.

VIII.The public officers in Porto Rico who continued to hold their offices after the conquest and treaty, held at the sufferance of the United States.

IX.A public office under American law and usage is a trust which can not be a subject of purchase and is not capable of being inherited.

The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court February 21, 1910.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 75 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 75

To repeal the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to require 
that drugs be dispensed only upon prescription, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to require 
that drugs be dispensed only upon prescription, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prescription Freedom Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FDA AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE PRESCRIPTIONS.

    (a) Repeal.--Effective as of the date that is 6 months after the 
date of enactment of this Act, subsection (b) of section 503 of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353) is repealed.
    (b) References.--Beginning on the effective date described in 
subsection (a), any reference in a Federal statute, regulation, or 
guidance--
            (1) to prescribing, a prescription, a prescription drug, or 
        a drug subject to section 503(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
        Cosmetic Act is deemed to be a reference to prescribing, a 
        prescription, or a prescription drug, respectively, under 
        applicable State law; and
            (2) to any requirement or provision of section 503(b) of 
        the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is deemed to be a 
        reference to the corresponding requirement or provision, if 
        any, in applicable State law, as determined by the Federal 
        official or officials responsible for administering the 
        respective Federal statute, regulation, or guidance.
    (c) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services may continue to exercise the 
authority vested by subsection (b) of section 503 of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353), as in effect on the day before 
the effective date described in subsection (a), with respect to any 
drug that is intended for use in terminating a pregnancy.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015221EN.01001701.xml

| 6.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/17

---

Order of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Automobili Lamborghini (Representation of two bulls)

(Case T-73/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 221/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: initially, A. Renck, V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers, and I. Fowler, Solicitor, then by A. Renck and I. Fowler)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Automobili Lamborghini SpA (Sant'Agata Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: M. Hartmann, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2013 (Case R 1263/2012-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Automobili Lamborghini SpA and Red Bull GmbH.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,461
<SECURITIES>                                    81,743
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,081
<PP&E>                                           8,685
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,094
<BONDS>                                            400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            95
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,174
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,763
<SALES>                                         43,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,988
<CGS>                                           45,974
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  33
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,880
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,041
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,839
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,839
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.1075 Argon gas analyzer. ( a ) *Identification.* An argon gas analyzer is a device intended to measure the concentration of argon in a gas mixture to aid in determining the patient's ventilatory status. The device may use techniques such as mass spectrometry or thermal conductivity.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131452 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131452 COA: 265810 Genesee CC: 02-074467-AR 67 th DC: FY002-CO659 BRANDON NATHANIEL MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 21, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0821 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 29, 2006

Clerk