alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IB-)0- £01$ a

•sr• :* .•••-•• ' **

r CoA A/o. OST-13 -OIL87'^ OK

Thy na<r»^_ /s -A (\»v^er ^-g-^-h^y rAxw^Kvx

n^^h (2&*s you -h&H ^*<l ^^y /viy 7f ^ K,

UJo<S r-g 'Pus g^X . (Z~aL>r\ JT Amv/<g. <a_ /r^w t>w&-\-los\

/*ee$L -ho do . ^Ig^cLccS-g. jT i>roke /?o /^<v

Co'/w/fc^*-** or d>s\£-l/seJL, TMe^JiL i^v-es, sA.0u<.l<K

have, beea ol ujcltro</\^ 'Per r^y a/resf: JT

sAquU no^ haL\A£. be*/\ *?<*+ o-y\ <x. pro^&^^Z.

Orote-T,' - :_ '

; TAt_ ~HocM^>c<\{ fo/fc^ *teft gl^JI rtocJz[Aj<x.l(.

O&CjcL^r S-ho^rz-cL 0r\ -Hjl SJ-^^d ancles' oc^PL

CQUKT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS

OCT 19 2015
A$<2- P^

^y^ ytyrlS-e*^. d<QCJZyO\' JT //V-e Q~>{\4\ //i A

/w,' \<l o£ -hhr-e.4- Sokoo^f e,\e.r~4-Pry ^lA/e.

T<P yoiA -J-&U ZSrO -ho STd<Q -g/pl-T -h> c^U 7^6.

p(S //^e &\/Zry -P'rrs^ 4Az.y see. &- s-hr^ex^oz-r„

•/-/£ pol/C-e. o *pP/<^£r j^jKo -Pg-as- vnu^v pg/^-eA

-/•#-€. fl/rU, X u/^r \VS'^ -PAeir -h^rn^-p, JT /nq^tg

/h? -hhr^F &P any (<L?/\Jl, /[aJC JZH <k/ts rio"f g^

^Are^k -ft? ^yg/i^r S-AsQ-Py*

Know -hte Cj>ur-\~ ^rror-eA -tA*y Sc^ld +A-ey

olfd, fie*<><L r&C0r\ilcl4r ^x T.D.&. so ^y

Col^^ <^Lia b(L Ki/^-eA TP/^oSjz. Aelje sPvy

vukjcf j*-o do * £• h a«/-c jCno^j ^/i-e .h'fr-z- ^°

he \)P m-e.

/h gy\\^ you

f>s: rto+hA Por^*s\P>°y\ oP j^vrnJi*

4~/>^e *

dlyx
* P ursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

s hould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 96-60658

_______________

MARTHA J. WILLIAMSON

and WILEY WILLIAMSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
LIBERTY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and GLYNN MOTT, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(4:95-CV-92-LN)

_________________________ March 28, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The plaintiffs allege a violation of title VII and assert various state causes of action stemming from Martha Williamson's discharge from employme nt by Liberty National Life Insurance
Com pany. The district court granted summary judgment on the title VII claim because Martha Williamson did not file her EEOC2

charge within 180 days, as required by the statute. The court dismissed the state claims without prejudice.
In its comprehensive, 21-page Memorandum Opinion and Order filed on June 25, 1996, the district court carefully explained why it concluded that the 180-day requirement was not satisfied. We agree with the court's reasoning and affirm on the basis of its persuasive opinion.
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary information extracted from
                  the Statements of Operations and Balance Sheets of Brown
                  Disc Products Company, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety
                  by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>          0000855373
<NAME>         BROWN DISC PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>   1
<S>                                   <C>         
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>   Jun-30-1997 
<PERIOD-START>                        Jul-01-1996 
<PERIOD-END>  Sep-30-1996 
<PERIOD-TYPE> 3-MOS 
<CASH>        65,435 
<SECURITIES>      0 
<RECEIVABLES> 284,849 
<ALLOWANCES>  17,609 
<INVENTORY>                               130,171 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          462,847 
<PP&E>        1,453,657 
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,335,221 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            590,973 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     498,620 
<BONDS>           0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     134,328 
<PREFERRED>                                25,368 
<COMMON>                                1,964,926 
<OTHER-SE>                             (2,401,835)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              590,973 
<SALES>       431,632 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          431,632 
<CGS>                                     306,791 
<TOTAL-COSTS> 669,433                                                                        
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>6,284 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (244,085)
<INCOME-TAX>      0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>(244,085)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0 
<CHANGES>                                       0 
<NET-INCOME>  (244,085)
<EPS-PRIMARY>  (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>  (.05)

        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Oct-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                            827
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                      453
<INVENTORY>                                    10,756
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               26,611
<PP&E>                                         29,346
<DEPRECIATION>                                  8,874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 62,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          19,319
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         1
<COMMON>                                          199
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,930
<SALES>                                        15,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,877
<CGS>                                          12,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,244
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (269)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (103)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (166)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (166)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)



</TABLE>
# C_2014245EN.01002902.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/29

---

Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Turon & Ros v Commission

(Case T-394/14)

2014/C 245/40

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Inmobiliaria Turon & Ros, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-392/14.

---
|   |   (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                      |                                                                                    |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |                                                                                    |
|                      | /s/      Daniel Pess                                                                    |
| August 19,      2008 | Daniel      Pess                                                                        |
|                      | President      and Treasurer(Principal      Executive, Financial and AccountingOfficer) |

----
#### Robert Saunders *v.*Warden, State Prison

(136960)

*Robert Saunders,*pro se, in support of the petition.

Submitted May 1

decided May *5,*1964

The petition by Robert Saunders for a writ of error from the judgment of the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 147 (Monday, August 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 38474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18328]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Cooperative Research Group on Clean Diesel V

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 17, 2009, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research Institute--
Cooperative Research Group on Clean Diesel V (``Clean Diesel V'') has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Johnson Matthey 
Inc., Malvern, PA has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Clean Diesel V intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On January 10, 2008, Clean Diesel V filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on February 25, 2008 (73 FR 10064).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 31, 
2009. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on May 7, 2009 (74 FR 21403).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-18328 Filed 7-31-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 1.652(b)-2 Allocation of income items. ( a ) The amounts specified in § 1.652(a)-1 which are required to be included in the gross income of a beneficiary are treated as consisting of the same proportion of each class of items entering into distributable net income of the trust (as defined in section 643(a)) as the total of each class bears to such distributable net income, unless the terms of the trust specifically allocate different classes of income to different beneficiaries, or unless local law requires such an allocation. For example: Assume that under the terms of the governing instrument, beneficiary A is to receive currently one-half of the trust income and beneficiaries B and C are each to receive currently one-quarter, and the distributable net income of the trust (after allocation of expenses) consists of dividends of $10,000, taxable interest of $10,000, and tax-exempt interest of $4,000. A will be deemed to have received $5,000 of dividends, $5,000 of taxable interest, and $2,000 of tax-exempt interest; B and C will each be deemed to have received $2,500 of dividends, $2,500 of taxable interest, and $1,000 of tax-exempt interest. However, if the terms of the trust specifically allocate different classes of income to different beneficiaries, entirely or in part, or if local law requires such an allocation, each beneficiary will be deemed to have received those items of income specifically allocated to him.
( b ) The terms of the trust are considered specifically to allocate different classes of income to different beneficiaries only to the extent that the allocation is required in the trust instrument, and only to the extent that it has an economic effect independent of the income tax consequences of the allocation. For example: ( 1 ) Allocation pursuant to a provision in a trust instrument granting the trustee discretion to allocate different classes of income to different beneficiaries is not a specific allocation by the terms of the trust.
( 2 ) Allocation pursuant to a provision directing the trustee to pay all of one income to A, or $10,000 out of the income to A, and the balance of the income to B, but directing the trustee first to allocate a specific class of income to A's share (to the extent there is income of that class and to the extent it does not exceed A's share) is not a specific allocation by the terms of the trust.
( 3 ) Allocation pursuant to a provision directing the trustee to pay half the class of income (whatever it may be) to A, and the balance of the income to B, is a specific allocation by the terms of the trust.
Summary of Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.1(d) 
 Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended November 30, 2006 
 SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

 Hooker Furniture Corporation 
 For calendar year 2007, non-employee directors will receive the following cash compensation: 
  

	 	•	 	 $18,000 annual retainer for service on the Board; plus 


  

	 	•	 	 $7,500 for serving on the Audit Committee and $3,000 for serving on each of the Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees;



  

	 	•	 	 an additional $4,500 for the Chair of the Audit Committee; and 


  

	 	•	 	 an additional $3,000 for the Chairs of the Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees. 


 In addition, directors are reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with attending board and committee meetings or performing their
duties as directors. 
 In 2006, non-employee directors began receiving an annual grant of restricted stock under the Company’s 2005
Stock Incentive Plan. The plan was approved by shareholders at the 2005 Annual Meeting. The number of shares of restricted stock awarded to each non-employee director is determined by dividing fifty percent of the total annual fees payable to that
director by the fair market value of the Company’s Common Stock on the award date (the average of the high and low market price of the stock on the day prior to the grant date), and rounding to the nearest whole share. The restricted stock will
become fully vested, and the restrictions applicable to the restricted stock will lapse, on the third anniversary of the grant date, or if earlier, when the director dies or is disabled, the Annual Shareholders Meeting following the director’s
attainment of age 75, or a change in control of the Company. 
 On January 15, 2007, each non-employee director of the Company received
an award of restricted shares of Company Common Stock as set forth in the table below: 
  

			
	 Outside Director
	  	 Restricted
Stock Grant
 (# of shares)

	 W. Christopher Beeler, Jr.
	  	1,034
	 John L. Gregory, III
	  	886
	 Mark F. Schreiber
	  	936
	 David G. Sweet
	  	936
	 Henry G. Williamson, Jr.
	  	1,083
§ 1.6037-2 Required use of electronic form for income tax returns of electing small business corporations. ( a ) *In general.* The return of an electing small business corporation that is required to be filed electronically under § 301.6037-2 of this chapter must be filed in accordance with IRS revenue procedures, publications, forms, or instructions, including those posted electronically.
( b ) *Applicability date.* The rules of this section apply to returns required to be filed for taxable years ending on or after December 31, 2023.
[T.D. 9972, 88 FR 11764, Feb. 23, 2023]
§ 1.151-2 Additional exemptions for dependents. ( a ) Section 151(e) allows to a taxpayer an exemption for each dependent (as defined in section 152) whose gross income (as defined in section 61) for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins is less than the amount provided in section 151(e)(1)(A) applicable to the taxable year of the taxpayer, or who is a child of the taxpayer and who— ( 1 ) The taxable year of the taxpayer begins, or
( 2 ) Is a student, as defined in paragraph (b) of § 1.151-3. No exemption shall be allowed under section 151(e) for any dependent who has made a joint return with his spouse under section 6013 for the taxable year beginning in the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins. The amount provided in section 151(e)(1)(A) is $750 in the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 1972; $700 in the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 1971, and before January 1, 1973; $650 in the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 1970, and before January 1, 1972; $625 in the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 1969, and before January 1, 1971; and $600 in the case of a taxable year beginning before January 1, 1970. For special rules in the case of a taxpayer whose taxable year is a fiscal year ending after December 31, 1969, and beginning before January 1, 1973, see section 21(d) and the regulations thereunder.
( b ) The only exemption allowed for a dependent of the taxpayer is that provided by section 151(e). The exemptions provided by section 151(c) (old-age exemptions) and section 151(d) (exemptions for the blind) are allowed only for the taxpayer or his spouse. For example, where a taxpayer provides the entire support for his father who meets all the requirements of a dependent, he is entitled to only one exemption for his father (section 151(e)), even though his father is over the age of 65.
[T.D. 7114, 36 FR 9019, May 18, 1971]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 1813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-515]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated August 28, 2009, and published in the Federal 
Register on September 8, 2009, (74 FR 46231), Chemic Laboratories, 
Inc., 480 Neponset Street, Building 7, Canton, Massachusetts 02021, 
made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Cocaine (9041), a 
basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the above 
listed controlled substance for distribution to its customers for the 
purpose of research.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Chemic Laboratories to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled 
substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has 
investigated Chemic Laboratories to ensure that the company's 
registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation 
has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security 
systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local 
laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, 
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the 
above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of 
the basic class of controlled substance listed.

    Dated: January 6, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-515 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO. DA 2 3
- 0026

) STATE OF MONTANA )

Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ORDER EXTENDING TIME vs. ) FOR OPENING BRIEF **)** ) THOMAS WOJTOWICZ )

Defendant

/Appellant. ) In response to Defendant/Appellant’s unopposed request for a fo urth extension and good cause therefrom; IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant/Appellant shall have until August 21, 2023, to file the Opening Brief. ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW,

_______________________________________ Supreme Court Justice

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 19 2023

07/19/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0026
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00556-CR

Jacob Michael TREVINO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR1642

Honorable Angus McGinty, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 5, 2011

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court imposed sentence on June 28, 2011. It does not appear that a motion for 

new trial was filed; therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on July 28, 2011. TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant filed his notice of appeal on August 1, 2011, and he did not file a 

motion for extension of time in which to file the notice.

On August 8, 2011, we ordered appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not file a response. This court lacks jurisdiction 

over an appeal of a criminal conviction in the absence of a timely, written notice of appeal. 
04-11-00556-CR

- 2 -

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96, 97 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1988); see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991) (out-of-time appeal from felony conviction may be sought by filing a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.07). This appeal is 

therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 22, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00721

- CR

Moises Guzman, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO ODWIN , AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgments of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments

of conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudic atio n of costs

is made

.