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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000854858
<NAME>                        Ajay Sports, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                                            52
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,968
<ALLOWANCES>                                     173
<INVENTORY>                                       91
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,539
<PP&E>                                        13,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                   214
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                31,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,276
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          2,239
<PREFERRED>                                    1,250
<COMMON>                                          41
<OTHER-SE>                                    23,149
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  31,632
<SALES>                                        3,657
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               30657
<CGS>                                              9
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      9
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               754
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (139)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (49)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (90)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (4,536)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (4,626)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.19)



</TABLE>
§ 1.1502-34 Special aggregate stock ownership rules. For purposes of §§ 1.1502-1 through 1.1502-80, in determining the stock ownership of a member of a group in another corporation (the “issuing corporation”) for purposes of determining the application of section 165(g)(3)(A), 332(b)(1), 333(b), 351(a), 732(f), or 904(f), in a consolidated return year, there shall be included stock owned by all other members of the group in the issuing corporation. Thus, assume that members A, B, and C each own 331 ⁄ 3 percent of the stock issued by D. In such case, A, B, and C shall each be treated as meeting the 80-percent stock ownership requirement for purposes of section 332, and no member can elect to have section 333 apply. Furthermore, the special rule for minority shareholders in section 337(d) cannot apply with respect to amounts received by A, B, or C in liquidation of D. [T.D. 6894, 31 FR 11794, Sept. 8, 1966, as amended by T.D. 8949, 66 FR 32902, June 19, 2001]
EXHIBIT 24

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

      The undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Thomas M. O'Flynn and
James T. Foran, and each of them (with full power to act without the other), the
true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent for and on behalf of the undersigned,
and in the undersigned's name, place and stead, in the undersigned's capacity as
a Director or Officer or both, as the case may be, of Public Service Enterprise
Group Incorporated (the "Registrant") to sign the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 to be filed by the Registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the registration under the Securities Act of 1933 of $1,900,000,000
aggregate principal amount of the Registrant's Common Stock, Preferred Stock,
Senior Debt Securities and Subordinated Debt Securities and any and all
amendments of such Registration Statement.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this instrument,
this 16th day of April, 2002.


         ----------------------                 ----------------------
         E. James Ferland                       Ernest H. Drew


         ----------------------                 ----------------------
         Raymond V. Gilmartin                   Albert R. Gamper


         ----------------------                 ----------------------
         William V. Hickey                      Conrad K. Harper


         ----------------------                 ----------------------
         Marilyn M. Pfaltz                      Shirley Ann Jackson


         ----------------------                 ----------------------
         Patricia A. Rado                       Richard J. Swift


                                                ----------------------
                                                Thomas M. O'Flynn
# C_2014409EN.01005502.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/55

---

Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Puma v OHIM — Sinda Poland (Representation of an imaginary animal)

(Case T-692/14)

2014/C 409/76

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sinda Poland Corporation Sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision issued on 14 September 2012 (Case R 2214/2013-5) on the grounds that Article 8(1)(b) CTMR was not correctly applied, which resulted in the incorrect finding that the conflicting trade marks were not visually and conceptually similar; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision issued on 14 September 2012 (Case R 2214/2013-5) on the grounds that Article 8(1)(b) CTMR was not correctly applied, which resulted in the incorrect finding that the conflicting trade marks were not visually and conceptually similar;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Sinda Poland Corporation Sp. z.o.o. to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Office. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Sinda Poland Corporation Sp. z.o.o. to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the representation of an imaginary animal for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 42  395

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The international registrations Nos 3 69  075 and 4 80  105 for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28, and the international registration No 5 93  987 for goods and services in all classes

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY 40 CFRPart 81 [Docket: EPA-R10-0AR-2010-04331 Determination ofAttainmentfor PM10: Eagle River PMlO Nonattainment Area, Alaslm AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposed to determined that the Eagle River nonattaimnent area inAlaska attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ofless than or equal to anominal ten micrometers (PM IO) as ofDecember 31,1994. DATES: Comments must be received on orbefore [insert date 30 days from the date of pUblication in the FederalRegister

### I. ADDRESSES: Submityour comments, identified byDocket ID No. EPA-R10-0AR-2010-0433, by any ofthe following methods: • www.regu1ations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Email: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov • Mail: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, u.S. EPA Region 10, Office ofAir, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, SeattleWA, 981012
• Hand Delivery/ Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10,1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA,98101. Attention: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, Office ofAir, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours ofoperation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries ofboxed infonnation. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section ofthisFederal Register for detailed instructions on howto submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at telephone number: (206) 553-6121, e-mail address: vaupe1.c1audia@epa.gov,ortheaboveEPA,Region 10 address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the direct final action, ofthe same title, which is located in the Rules section ofthis Federal Register. EPA is approving the attainment detennination as a direct final rule without priorproposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. IfEPA receives no adverse comments, EPA wi11not take further action on this proposed rule.3 IfEPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposedrule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Anyparties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that ifwereceive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section ofthis rule and ifthat provision may be severed from the remainder ofthe rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions oftherule that are not the subject ofan adverse comment. DATED: ( 0 

# {-t

# /2--0 (0

# ~J.=n¥#- Dennis J. MeL rran Regional Administrator EPA Region 10.
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4700 Surgical microscope and accessories. ( a ) *Identification.* A surgical microscope and accessories is an AC-powered device intended for use during surgery to provide a magnified view of the surgical field.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 878.9.
[55 FR 48440, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63010, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38803, July 25, 2001]
# C_2015046EN.01002702.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/27

---

Appeal brought on 1 December 2014 by Kyocera Mita Europe BV against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2014 in Case T-35/11: Kyocera Mita Europe BV v European Commission

(Case C-553/14 P)

(2015/C 046/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kyocera Mita Europe BV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, P. Muñiz, advogado)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside, in whole, the order delivered by the EU General Court in case T-35/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, in whole, the order delivered by the EU General Court in case T-35/11;

| — | rule that the appeal is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the appeal is admissible;

| — | return the case to the EU General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

return the case to the EU General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

| — | order the Defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on the following two grounds:

First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of Article 263 TFUE, when it concluded that the Regulation ‘entailed implementing measures’ within the meaning of that provision.

Secondly, the General Court infringed the Appellant’s right to be heard, erred in the legal characterisation of the evidence submitted by the Appellant, and alternatively distorted such evidence.

---
#### § 1.154 Statutory provisions; cross references.

Sec. 154. *Cross references.* (1) For definitions of “husband” and “wife”, as used in section 152(b)(4), see section 7701(a)(17).

(2) For deductions of estates and trusts, in lieu of the exemptions under section 151, see section 642(b).

(3) For exemptions of nonresident aliens, see section 873(b)(3).

(4) For exemptions of citizens deriving income mainly from sources within possessions of the United States, see section 931(e).

(Sec. 154 as amended by sec. 103(c)(2), Foreign Investors Tax Act 1966 (80 Stat. 1551))

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402, Nov. 26, 1960; 25 FR 14021, Dec. 21, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7332, 39 FR 44216, Dec. 23, 1974]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO ABEL HUERTA CACHO;

SANDRA RIVERO FRAYSSINET,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74421

Agency Nos. A095-190-477

 A095-190-478

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Fernando Abel Huerta Cacho, and Sandra Rivero Frayssinet, natives and

citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 

(“BIA”) order denying their appeal, which the BIA construed as a motion to reopen

FILED

APR 14 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74421

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Reyes v. Ashcroft,

358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen based on its finding that, even if the motion was timely, petitioners failed to

satisfy the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec.

637, 689 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance they allege is not plain on the

face of the record. See id. at 597-99.

The petitioners contention the BIA erred by denying the motion to reopen

without out considering that it was a joint request to reopen. We reject this

contention because it is belied by the record – the government did not join in the

request to reopen. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7912 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the aggregate 

dollar limitation on the amount of qualified adoption expenses which 

may be taken into account for purposes of the adoption expenses credit 

in the case of a taxpayer who adopts 2 siblings in the same taxable 

year. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2024 

Mr. NUNN of Iowa (for himself and Mr. DAVIS of North Carolina) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the aggregate dollar limitation on the amount of qualified 

adoption expenses which may be taken into account for 

purposes of the adoption expenses credit in the case 

of a taxpayer who adopts 2 siblings in the same taxable 

year. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fight for Siblings Act 

5 of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7912 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN AGGREGATE DOLLAR LIMITATION ON 

2 ADOPTION EXPENSES CREDIT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 23(b)(1) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘($20,000 

5 in the case of a taxpayer that finalizes the adoption of 

6 2 children who are siblings in the same taxable year)’’ 

7 after ‘‘$10,000’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 this section shall apply to adoptions finalized after the 

10 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         250,980
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,164,486
<ALLOWANCES>                                 8,130,676
<INVENTORY>                                     77,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,879,265
<PP&E>                                       1,582,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,924,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,728,645
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,701,751
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,924,907
<SALES>                                      2,615,387
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,863,742
<CGS>                                        2,583,358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,583,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (5,211)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               747,125
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,448,903)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,448,903)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,448,903)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.12    
  


 
 

CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
  OF
  PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL CAPITAL TRUST III    
  


        THIS
Certificate of Trust of Prudential Financial Capital Trust III (the "Trust") is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustees, to form a statutory trust under
the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del.C. Section 3801 et seq.) (the "Act"). 


        1.    Name:
The name of the statutory trust formed hereby is Prudential Financial Capital Trust III. 


        2.    Delaware
Trustee: The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware is Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association, c/o JP Morgan
Chase, Attention: Institutional Trust Services, 500 Stanton Christiana Road, OPS4 / 3rd Floor, Newark, Delaware 19713. 



        3.    Effective
Date: This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon its filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware. 


 
 

[Signature page follows]    
  






        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act. 



	 	 	CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Delaware Trustee	 	 
	



 	

 	



By:	



/s/  JOHN J. CASHIN      
 Name: John J. Cashin

Title: Vice-President	

 	



 
	

 	
 	
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,

as Property Trustee	
 	

 
	



 	

 	



By:	



/s/  CRAIG BAUMBERGER      
 Name: Craig Baumberger

Title: Trust Officer	

 	



 
	

 	
 	

/s/  RICHARD VACCARO      
 Name: Richard Vaccaro

as Administrative Trustee	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

/s/  SCOTT KAPLAN      
 Name: Scott Kaplan

as Administrative Trustee	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

/s/  JONATHAN HUNT      
 Name: Jonathan Hunt

as Administrative Trustee	
 	

 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.12


CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL CAPITAL TRUST III

[Signature page follows]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1937** 

DEBORAH E. MAPP , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH & DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:12

- cv - 00252

- MSD

- TEM )

Submitted : October 11, 2012 Decided: November 5, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Deborah E. Mapp, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Deborah E. Mapp seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her compla int for failure to comply with a court order directing her to pay a $350 filing fee. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district cour t’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of a ppeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June 15, 2012. Accordingly, the latest day for filing a timely notice of appeal was Monday, Ju ly 16, 2012. Mapp’s notice of appeal, however, was not received for filing until Tuesday, July 17, 2012. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d). Because Mapp failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We also deny leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED