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

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000857571
<NAME> AEP GENERATING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      336,151
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          6
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          44,939
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         2,410
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   5,624
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 389,130
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       26,300
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              5,836
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  33,136
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                 0
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              37,870
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   44,804
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        475
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   252
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 272,593
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  389,130
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      113,794
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,348
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     108,305
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     109,653
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          4,141
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,769
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   5,910
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,812
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,098
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    4,098
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         1,935
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          (6,281)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 351.71 How can I find out what my book-entry Series EE savings bonds are worth? ( a ) *Redemption values.* You may access redemption values for your book-entry bonds through your New Treasury Direct account.
( b ) *Redemption penalty.* Redemption values shown in your New Treasury Direct account for bonds that are within 5 years from issue date reflect the three-month interest penalty applied to bonds redeemed prior to five years from the issue date.
#### Charles S. WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-6655.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 19, 2002.

Charles S. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Charles S. Wright seeks to appeal 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Wright v. Angelone,*No. CA-01-339-2 (E.D.Va. Apr. 1, 2002). 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.*
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 205.28 How are interest payments exchanged? ( a ) We offset the adjusted total State interest liability and the adjusted total Federal interest liability for each State to determine the net interest payable to or from each specific State. The payment of net interest and any Interest Calculation Costs, as set forth in § 205.27, for the most recently completed fiscal year must occur no later than March 31. We will notify a State of the final net interest liability. A State must submit a claim to receive payment.
( b ) A State may appeal a decision by us on interest liabilities and interest calculation cost claims in accordance with § 205.31.
( c ) If a State appeals the amount of interest payable in accordance with the provisions of § 205.31, payment must occur by March 31 for any portions not subject to the appeal.
( d ) The Federal government will not be liable for interest on any payment of interest to a State.
BATHYMETRIC FISHING MAP

i Petite ot Wasbeypen, tC Eas NG
Soh oan ence wee cere US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - to BRAMEH
SSS A es ; NAnONAL OCEAN ANI IMCPRENI A ; : BATHYMETRIC FISHING MAP

grea | ort
16 em Re eran ee etm 4 at mer bat tt

eo ae

Seveor Yaracerne Mons Got hi NE 200 Magnes Ta én

sae SATIVVETINC CONTE MAMERWALS. 7 WATER TOL AnAweaman OFTHE
Cea re alee ery tt et pd by oy ee ——! ROPPUMETED WF | METER TERMS.

DaTuwy kare yt \irw walt

taacryenan asiecAtion PREQAETEIN
‘SCauk tonne

=
Slt ee ae eee oe |

freee cen res ta SR rar ey re ee ae NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION

No heeeten meng ts bese fey Ay

rahe
Fame (easy Game oa Tr
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1312

To establish a freeze on bank fees for accounts held by average taxpayers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 23, 1995

Ms. WATERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To establish a freeze on bank fees for accounts held by

average taxpayers.

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 ‘‘Freeze on Bank Fees

5 Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. FREEZE ON BANK FEES OF AVERAGE TAXPAYERS.

7 Section 18 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12

8 U.S.C. 1828) is amended by adding at the end the follow9 ing new subsection:

10 ‘‘(s) FREEZE ON BANK FEES FOR AVERAGE TAX11 PAYERS.—
2

•HR 1312 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—During the 2-year period

2 beginning on the date of the enactment of the

3 Freeze on Bank Fees Act of 1995, no insured depos4 itory institution may impose any fee of any sort on

5 any average taxpayer account in an amount in ex6 cess of the amount imposed for such fee, if any, as

7 of such date of enactment.

8 ‘‘(2) AVERAGE TAXPAYER ACCOUNT DE9 FINED.—For purposes of this subsection, the term

10 ‘average taxpayer account’ means any transaction

11 account held by any person other than a corporation

12 in which the average daily balance (determined on a

13 monthly basis) does not exceed $3,000.’’.

Æ
§ 13.7 Reimbursement when the Assistant Secretary makes no determination to utilize State and local government services, personnel, equipment and facilities. ( a ) Where events require the State or local governments of the affected metropolitan area to provide protection to meet an extraordinary protective need otherwise qualifying for reimbursement, such reimbursement may be made even if the provisions of §§ 13.4 and 13.5 have not been complied with fully. In such circumstances the provisions of § 13.6 shall apply.
( b ) In cases where State or local governments, or both, utilized their own services, personnel, equipment, and facilities to provide protection for an extraordinary protective need, and no request for protective assistance pursuant to § 13.4 was made because the extraordinary protective need occurred prior to the promulgation of this part but after July 1, 1974, an application by such government to the Assistant Secretary for reimbursement otherwise conforming to the requirements of this part will be considered.
[41 FR 55179, Dec. 17, 1976, as amended at 45 FR 30622, May 9, 1980]
#### § 1026.311 Filing obligations.

Refer to § 1010.311 of this chapter for reports of transactions in currency filing obligations for futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities.

[76 FR 10521, Feb. 25, 2011]
#### M.S. Hi-Tech, Inc., Respondent, v Donald J. Thompson, Jr., Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 122]

*443In action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated October 20, 2003, which granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (a) for leave to enter judgment upon his default in appearing at a compliance conference.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The defendant’s affidavit presented a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the compliance conference purportedly scheduled for June 17, 2003, based on his lack of notice of the compliance conference. The record does not contain any evidence that the defendant received notice of the conference. Additionally, the record contains verified pleadings by the defendant which suggest the possibility of a meritorious defense. Moreover, there is no indication that the defendant’s failure to appear at the compliance conference was deliberate, or that it caused the plaintiff to suffer prejudice. Under the circumstances, and considering that public policy favors resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs motion *(cf. Cazeau v Paul,*2 AD3d 477, 478 [2003]; *Reices v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,*306 AD2d 394 [2003]; *see generally Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv.,*282 AD2d 190, 197 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 345.1 Description of certificates. ( a ) *General.* The certificates of indebtedness will be issued in book-entry form on the books of the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Washington, DC 20226. They may not be transferred by sale, exchange, assignment or pledge, or otherwise.
( b ) *Terms and rates of interest.* The certificates, bearing interest at the rate of 5 percent per annum, will be issued in multiples of $1,000 and will mature one year from issue date. Interest on the certificates will be computed on an annual basis and, unless redeemed prior to maturity, will be payable six months from issue date and at maturity. Interest may be paid to an owner by having the amount thereof credited by a Federal Reserve Bank or Branch, acting as fiscal agent of the United States, to the reserve account of a member bank servicing such owner and for the latter's account. Such action will be taken at the owner's option. If not exercised, payment of interest will be made by Treasury check.
[38 FR 35306, Dec. 27, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 29846, July 16, 1975]
Home2019 Treaties and Agreements...Armenia (19-717) – Agreement for Cooperation to Facilitate the Implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

# 									Armenia (19-717) – Agreement for Cooperation to Facilitate the Implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

July 17, 2019

Taxation: Foreign Account Tax Compliance

Signed at Yerevan February 12, 2018; entered in force July 17, 2019.  With annexes and related exchange of notes.
Download Agreement						 [7 MB]

Tags

ArmeniaTaxationTreaties

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         277,252
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,104,804
<ALLOWANCES>                                   129,000
<INVENTORY>                                    108,677
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,468,592
<PP&E>                                       1,978,359
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,518,378
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,118,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,333,461
<BONDS>                                      1,368,687
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,948
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           320
<OTHER-SE>                                   (587,296)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,118,121
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,547,017
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,534,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             486,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (467,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (467,901)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (467,901)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)


</TABLE>
* 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 July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40243 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARIO SAENZ-CHAPA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-778-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Mario Saenz-Chapa raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
39995.

#### TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANSLEY.

Decided April 4, 1963.

Bell, Judge.

Where an insurance agency contract provides that any cash advances made to the agent are to be repaid from premiums earned by the agent and, thereafter, by 61 separate signed receipts the agent agreed to repay on demand the advances made, these 61 signed receipts constituted an express or implied promise by the agent to repay any excess of advances over the commissions earned. *Smith v. Franklin Printing Co.,*54 Ga. App. 385 (2) (187 SE 904); *Valdosta Roofing &c. Co. v. Lawrence,*89 Ga. App. 168 (79 SE2d 10); and *Wilson v. Naumann,*87 Ga. App. 824 (75 SE2d 295). The signed receipts constituted valid changes or modifications of the original agreement. *McGregor v. Bensinger Self-Adding Register Co.,*86 Ga. 439 (12 SE 683); and see *Wilson v. Naumann,*88 Ga. App. 782 (77 SE2d 756); *Hewlett v. Almand,*25 Ga. App. 346 (103 SE 173); *Elyea-Austell Co. v. Jackson Garage,*13 Ga. App. 182 (79 SE 38); 12 Am. Jur. 983, Contracts, § 405.

No evidence appears in the record disputing the signing of any of the receipts nor is there any other evidence subsequent to them showing any mutual modification of their clear meaning. The language of the writings is clear and unambiguous and is subject only to the construction that it effectuated express promises by the agent to repay to the company any excess of advances over the commissions earned. *Code*§ 20-701.

There being nothing in the record to the contrary, and the con- ■ tracts being subject only to the construction stated, the evidence did not authorize a finding for the defendant but demanded a judgment in some amount for the plaintiff.

The judgment of the trial court overruling the motion for new trial on the general grounds is

*Reversed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*

*587*Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeBieux, James H. Moore,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. T. Hendon, Jr.,*contra.
g

UNITED STATES

BATHYMETRIC MAP

ATLANTIC GCtAN
NORFOLK CANYON

"TF

ti

Palo

x

v
”

Arbtabed @ Woseepins OC
US. DEPARTMEN? OF COMMERCE
HANOriAy OCRAMC AND ATMO
taATIOMA, CCEA

19st

ATMA MAAN LOWER LO wtb

HIMENLMAL YEW

NORFOLK CANYON
(N370074W)

BATHYMETRIC MAP LM15@
# L_2020121EN.01000301.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 121/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 121/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/541

of 7 April 2020

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Csemege sajt’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Csemege sajt’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Csemege sajt’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Csemege sajt’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Csemege sajt’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Csemege sajt’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. – Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 April 2020.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 408, 4.12.2019, p. 8.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 273RD DISTRICT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 29th

day of August, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

JOAQUIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant

NO. 12-13-00038-CV; Trial Court No. 08-CV-30,215

Opinion by Brian Hoyle, Justice.

SHELBY COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, SHELBY COUNTY APPRAISAL 

REVIEW BOARD, SHELBYVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellees

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the oral arguments, appellate record, and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that all costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged against the 

Appellant, JOAQUIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, for which execution may 

issue, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 21st day of May, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of China Green Agriculture, Inc. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:




(1) The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2011 (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.




Date:  November 9, 2011





/s/ Tao LiName: Tao LiTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)




This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.