alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Micron Enviro Systems, Inc.
                           460 789 West Pender Street
                                 Vancouver, B.C.


November 27, 2002

Krause Chemical Ltd.
Buckingham Square, Penthouse
720 West Bay Road
P.O. Box 30691
SMB
George Town, Grand Cayman,
Cayman Islands


Dear Sirs,

Please accept this letter as our formal acceptance of you offer to acquire a
further 1.4% net revenue interest in the Green Ranch Oil and Gas prospect in
Texas. Further to the attached agreement between our two companies dated
February 4, 2002 "Exhibit A" by signing below both Micron Enviro Systems, Inc.
("Micron ) and Krause Chemical Ltd. ("Krause") agree to the following terms:

Micron shall increase its net revenue interest from 2.5% to 3.9% and the working
interest shall remain at 5%. The consideration for the increase in net revenue
shall be $10,000 US.



Yours truly,




/s/ Bernard McDougall


Micron Enviro Systems Inc.
Bernard McDougall




Agreed:

Date: 27 November 02


/s/ (illegible)
------------------------------
Krause Chemical Ltd.
#### § 1.1202-1 Deduction for capital gains.

(a) In computing gross income, adjusted gross income, taxable income, capital gain net income (net capital gain for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1977) and net capital loss, 100 percent of any gain or loss (computed under section 1001, recognized under section 1002, and taken into account without regard to subchapter P (section 1201 and following), chapter 1 of the Code) upon the sale or exchange of a capital asset shall be taken into account regardless of the period for which the capital asset has been held. Nevertheless, the net short-term capital gain or loss and the net long-term capital gain or loss must be separately computed. In computing the adjusted gross income or the taxable income of a taxpayer other than a corporation, if for any taxable year the net long-term capital gain exceeds the net short-term capital loss, 50 percent of the amount of the excess is allowable as a deduction from gross income under section 1202.

(b) For the purpose of computing the deduction allowable under section 1202 in the case of an estate or trust, any long-term or short-term capital gains which, under sections 652 and 662, are includible in the gross income of its income beneficiaries as gains derived from the sale or exchange of capital assets must be excluded in determining whether, for the taxable year of the estate or trust, its net long-term capital gain exceeds its net short-term capital loss. To determine the extent to which such gains are includible in the gross income of a beneficiary, see the regulations under sections 652 and 662. For example, during 1954 a trust realized a gain of $1,000 upon the sale of stock held for 10 months. Under the terms of the trust instrument all of such gain must be distributed during the taxable year to A, the sole income beneficiary. Assuming that under section 652 or 662 A must include all of such gain in his gross income, the trust is not entitled to any deduction with respect to such gain under section 1202. Assuming A had no other capital gains or losses for 1954, he would be entitled to a deduction of $500 under section 1202. For purposes of this section, an income beneficiary shall be any beneficiary to whom an amount is required to be distributed, or is paid or credited, which is includible in his gross income.

(c) The provisions of this section may be illustrated by the following example:

# Example:

A, an individual, had the following transactions in 1954:

| Long-term capital gain | $6,000 | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Long-term capital loss | 4,000 | |
| Net long-term capital gain | | $2,000 |
| Short-term capital loss | 1,800 | |
| Short-term capital gain | 300 | |
| Net short-term capital loss | 1,500 |
| Excess of net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss | 500 |

Since the net long-term capital gain exceeds the net short-term capital loss by $500, 50 percent of the excess, or $250, is allowable as a deduction under section 1202.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12001, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7728, 45 FR 72650, Nov. 3, 1980]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1997

<CASH>                                          2,429
<SECURITIES>                                   44,580
<RECEIVABLES>                                   7,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,672
<INVENTORY>                                     2,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               60,392
<PP&E>                                         15,850
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,931
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 66,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,027
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       59,383
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   66,669
<SALES>                                        39,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               39,392
<CGS>                                          10,517
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  29,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,409
<INCOME-TAX>                                      486
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      923
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .07
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016016EN.01002901.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-107/14) (1)

1

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment entitlements scheme - National reserve - Allocation criteria - Risk to the Fund - Cross compliance))

(2016/C 016/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented: initially by I. Chalkias, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, and subsequently by M. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 338, p. 81), in so far as the Hellenic Republic is concerned.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction on the Hellenic Republic relating to the allocation of entitlements from the national reserve and in so far as the European Commission applied to the Hellenic Republic a financial correction in respect of 2008 relating to cross-compliance; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction on the Hellenic Republic relating to the allocation of entitlements from the national reserve and in so far as the European Commission applied to the Hellenic Republic a financial correction in respect of 2008 relating to cross-compliance;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.

1

---
# C_2015155EN.01004401.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/44

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 March 2015 — Singou v Council

(Case F-143/14)

((Civil Service - Contract staff - Rejection of a complaint of psychological harassment - Non-renewal of contract - No claim - Manifestly inadmissible))

(2015/C 155/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Simplice Gervais Singou (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Dambel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2009 to reject a complaint of psychological harassment made by the applicant and application to annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 April 2012 by which the Appointing Authority refused to extend the applicant’s contract or transform it into a permanent contractual staff contract, and applications for damages for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | The application for legal aid is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application for legal aid is rejected.

| 3. | Mr Singou shall bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Singou shall bear his own costs.

---
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 137

To refer S. 1335 entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief of the Menominee Indian

Tribe of Wisconsin’’ to the Chief Judge of the United States Claims

Court for a report thereon.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 30 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. KOHL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

To refer S. 1335 entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin’’ to the Chief Judge of

the United States Claims Court for a report thereon.

1 Resolved, That S. 1335 entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief

2 of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin’’ now pend3 ing in the Senate, together with all the accompanying pa4 pers, is referred to the Chief Judge of the United States

5 Claims Court. The Chief Judge shall proceed according

6 to the provisions of sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28,

7 United States Code, and report back to the Senate, at the

8 earliest practicable date, providing such findings of fact

9 and conclusions that are sufficient to inform the Congress
2

SRES 137 IS

1 of the nature, extent, and character of the damages re2 ferred to in such bill as a legal or equitable claim against

3 the United States or a gratuity, and the amount, if any,

4 legally or equitably due from the United States to the Me5 nominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin by reason of such dam6 ages.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 108 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 108

 To refer S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of Richard Kanehl of 
  Mobile, Alabama.'' to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
                  Federal Claims for a report thereon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 18 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

Mr. Mitchell (for Mr. Heflin) submitted the following resolution; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To refer S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of Richard Kanehl of 
  Mobile, Alabama.'' to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
                  Federal Claims for a report thereon.

    Resolved, That the bill S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of 
Richard Kanehl of Mobile, Alabama.'' now pending in the Senate, 
together with all the accompanying papers, is referred to the chief 
judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The chief judge 
shall proceed with the same in accordance with the provisions of 
sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, United States Code, and report 
thereon to the Senate, at the earliest practicable date, giving such 
findings of fact and conclusions thereon as shall be sufficient to 
inform the Congress of the nature and character of the demand as a 
claim, legal or equitable, against the United States or a gratuity and 
the amount, if any, legally or equitably due to the claimants from the 
United States.

                                 <all>
```
* 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
April 18, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50957 Summary Calendar

LI YU, Administrator of Estate of Wei Y. Wu,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; CAROLINE A. HERRERA, In her Individual Capacity and her Official Capacity, Materials and Test Section, Construction Division, Texas Department of Transportation; KATHERINE L. HOLTZ, In her Individual Capacity and her Official Capacity, Materials and Test Section, Construction Division, Texas Department of Transportation,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(A-01-CV-741-SS)

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Li Yu appeals, pro se , the dismissal of her action under the

Americans With Disabilities Act, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985 and Texas tort law. We

affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the district court in

its 7 January and 2 August 2002 orders.2

Li Yu asserts, for the first time on appeal, default judgment

should have been entered against Defendants because they failed to

timely answer her c omplaint. No authority need be cited for the

proposition that our court will not consider contentions made for

the first time on appeal. In any event, the Texas Department of

Transportation (TxDOT) timely filed 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) motions and

Herrera and Holtz tim ely filed answers in response to the

complaint.

The d istrict court properly held it lacked subject matter

jurisdiction because TxDOT and Herrera and Holtz, in their official

capacities, were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

E.g., Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett ,

531 U.S. 356 (2001). While there may be subject matter

jurisdiction for the Title VII claim, the district court properly

dismissed that claim for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. G

riffin v. City of Dallas
, 26 F.3d 610, 612-13 (5th Cir.

1994).

Finally, the district court did not ab use its discretion in

dis missing, for failure to prosecute, the claims against Herrera

and Holtz, in their individual capacities. S alinas v. Sun Oil Co. ,
819 F.2d 105, 106 (5th Cir. 1987)

.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1,000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              1,418
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              3,332
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                        0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                        0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        49,599
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                                  0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                    0
<LOANS>                                            78,363
<ALLOWANCE>                                           304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    138,451
<DEPOSITS>                                         86,565
<SHORT-TERM>                                       23,300
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                 1,159
<LONG-TERM>                                        15,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                               11
<OTHER-SE>                                         12,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                    138,451
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                     6,015
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   3,352
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                      251
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                    9,618
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                  3,759
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  5,735
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                               3,883
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                           1
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                      7
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                     2,802
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     1,956
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          1,956
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                        1,272
<EPS-BASIC>                                          1.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1.78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       7.15
<LOANS-NON>                                           111
<LOANS-PAST>                                            0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                        0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                       628
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                      311
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                          11
<RECOVERIES>                                            3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                     304
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                  290
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                14


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 84 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 84

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the week of June 1, 1993, through June 7, 1993, as a ``Week 
 for the National Observance of the Fiftieth Anniversary of World War 
                                 II''.
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 84

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Designating the week of June 1, 1993, through June 7, 1993, as a ``Week 
 for the National Observance of the Fiftieth Anniversary of World War 
                                 II''.

Whereas the brave men and women of the United States made tremendous sacrifices 
        during World War II to save the world from tyranny and aggression;
Whereas the winds of freedom and democracy sweeping the globe today spring from 
        the principles for which over four hundred thousand Americans gave their 
        lives in World War II;
Whereas World War II and the events that led up to that war must be understood 
        in order that we may better understand our own times, and more fully 
        appreciate the reasons why eternal vigilance against any form of tyranny 
        is so important;
Whereas the World War II era, as reflected in its family life, industry, and 
        entertainment, was a unique period in American history, and epitomized 
        our Nation's philosophy of hard work, courage, and tenacity in the face 
        of adversity;
Whereas, between 1991 and 1995, over nine million United States veterans of 
        World War II will be holding reunions and conferences and otherwise 
        commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of various events relating to 
        World War II; and
Whereas June 4, 1993, marks the anniversary of the beginning of the Battle of 
        Midway, and June 6, 1993, marks the anniversary of D-Day: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the week of June 1, 1993, 
through June 7, 1993, is designated as a ``Week for the National 
Observance of the Fiftieth Anniversary of World War II'', and the 
President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling 
on the people of the United States to observe the week with appropriate 
ceremonies and activities.

            Passed the Senate May 19 (legislative day, April 19), 1993.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7655

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL SALGADO ROMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CR-97-149, CA-98-1734-4-22)

Submitted: February 23, 1999 Decided: May 25, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Miguel Salgado Roman, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker

Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Miguel Roman seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment and

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Roman, Nos. CR-97-149;

CA-98-1734-4-22 (D.S.C. Sept. 24, 1998). 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