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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          20,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                (20,818)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,458
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,122,610
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,131,068)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (287)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (287)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 801.207 Investment fund.

The term *investment fund* means any entity that is an “investment company,” as defined in section 3(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 *et seq.*), or would be an “investment company” but for one or more of the exemptions provided in section 3(b) or 3(c) thereunder.
#### Jerry SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 73-677, 73-792.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 21, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 347.10 Authorized form of registration. ( a ) Retirement savings bonds are issued to the IRA custodian for Treasury's retirement savings program. No other registrations under this subpart are permitted.
( b ) In the event Fiscal Service designates a successor IRA custodian, Fiscal Service may reissue retirement savings bonds held by the predecessor custodian to the successor custodian.
[82 FR 6246, Jan. 19, 2017]
#### Ignacio F. AVILA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-642.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 3, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1975.

*551Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Kathleen Gallagher, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Linda C. Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant was charged by information with (1) breaking and entering and (2) petit larceny. Defendant first entered a plea of not guilty and thereafter pled guilty to both charges. Thereupon, the trial judge found defendant guilty of the charges and thereafter entered two orders withholding adjudication of guilt on each count; However, the judge then sentenced the defendant-appellant on each charge to 40 days in the county jail1 to be followed by five years probation. Approximately two years later, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed wherein appellant was charged with violation of condition “H” of his probation. After a hearing thereon was held, defendant-appellant was found guilty of violation of probation. His probation was revoked and he was sentenced to concurrent sentences of five years in the state penitentiary on each count.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in revoking defendant’s probation since the probationary part of his sentence was a nullity. We agree.

Since the trial judge chose to impose a sentence of 40 days in county jail and failed to suspend any part thereof, the sentence of probation was void ab initio and, therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation and impose a new sentence. See Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 280 So.2d 518; Hutchins v. State, Fla.App.1973, 286 So.2d 244; Cleveland v. State, Fla.App.1973, 287 So.2d 347; Kohn v. State; Fla.App. 1974, 289 So.2d 48; Bryant v. State, Fla.App.1974, 290 So.2d 122; Reynolds v. State, Fla.App.1974, 293 So.2d 743.

Accordingly, the order revoking probation is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to discharge the appellant as to the concurrent five year sentences which followed his revocation of probation.

Reversed and remanded.

1

. These jail sentences were to run concurrently.
#### § 594.309 Property; property interest.

The terms *property* and *property interest* include, but are not limited to, money, checks, drafts, bullion, bank deposits, savings accounts, debts, indebtedness, obligations, notes, guarantees, debentures, stocks, bonds, coupons, any other financial instruments, bankers acceptances, mortgages, pledges, liens or other rights in the nature of security, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, trust receipts, bills of sale, any other evidences of title, ownership or indebtedness, letters of credit and any documents relating to any rights or obligations thereunder, powers of attorney, goods, wares, merchandise, chattels, stocks on hand, ships, goods on ships, real estate mortgages, deeds of trust, vendors' sales agreements, land contracts, leaseholds, ground rents, real estate and any other interest therein, options, negotiable instruments, trade acceptances, royalties, book accounts, accounts payable, judgments, patents, trademarks or copyrights, insurance policies, safe deposit boxes and their contents, annuities, pooling agreements, services of any nature whatsoever, contracts of any nature whatsoever, and any other property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible, or interest or interests therein, present, future or contingent.
# C_2005179EN.01000301.xml

| 21.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3648 — Gruner + Jahr/MPS)

(2005/C 179/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 8 April 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3648. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3648. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
amendmenttoperformance-b






  BLUELINX HOLDINGS INC.      AMENDMENT TO  PERFORMANCE-BASED RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT       This Amendment to Performance-Based Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement  (the “Amendment”) is entered into by and between BLUELINX HOLDINGS INC., a Delaware  corporation (the “Company”), and ____________________ (“Grantee”).    W I T N E S S E T H:     WHEREAS, the Company and Grantee are parties to that certain Performance-Based  Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement with a grant date of June 8, 2018 (the “RSU Agreement”),  covering performance-based restricted stock units granted under the BlueLinx Holdings Inc. 2016  Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan; and    WHEREAS, the Company and Grantee would like to amend the Agreement to adjust the  Performance Measure set forth therein.     NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as of the date hereof as follows:    1. The first sentence of Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in  its entirety by the following:    “No Shares subject to the RSUs shall vest or be payable unless the Company  achieves LTM Adjusted EBITDA of at least $135 million as of the end of any fiscal  quarter ending prior to the third anniversary of the Grant Date (the “Performance  Measure”).”    2. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given in the  Agreement.    3. Except as hereby amended, the provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full  force and effect.      [signatures on following page]     





 






2   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the  last date this Amendment is executed by a party below.      BLUELINX HOLDINGS INC.        By:    Name:    Title:    Date:         GRANTEE           Name:    Date:
HomeJapan

# Japan

601 items

        -    TIAS  		Japan (88-705) – Agreement Concerning Market Access for Beef, Fresh Oranges, Orange Juice and Other Products	  July 5, 1988 

previous page1…596061

Back to Top
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
June 4, 2014
N o. 04

- 14

- 00305

- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF S.O.J.P. , Et al., Children,
From th e 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 01294 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding 

### ORDER Appellant father J.P. appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights. Appellant’s court

- appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. In In re R.R. , No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.), we held that in parental

- termination appeals, a procedure akin to Anders is necessary to best protect the statutory right to counsel on appeal, to provide a procedural mechanism for counsel to fulfill his ethical obligations, to assist the court in deciding appeals, and to provide consistent procedures for all indigen t litigants. In compliance with the procedure set out in Anders , appellant’s attorney has informed appellant of his right to file his own brief. See Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within twenty (20) days from the date of this order. If appellant files a pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive brief no later than twenty da ys after the date appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. We ORDER the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel, to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 4th day of June, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
# Exhibit 31.2

# CERTIFICATION

I, Cynthia B. Koenig, certify that:

|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of USHEALTH Group, Inc.
          (formerly, Ascent Assurance, Inc.);
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
          material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
          made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
          misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 21, 2005

| | /s/ Cynthia B. KoenigCynthia B. KoenigSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Home
Airports
Resources
Series 150 Advisory Circulars (ACs) for Airport Projects

# AC 36-4C - Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification (Cancelled)

- ShareShare
- 

- Facebook					Share on Facebook
- Twitter					Tweet on Twitter

## Document Information

- Number
- 36-4C
- Title
- Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification
- Date cancelled
- 2017-10-12
- Cancellation notes
- AC 36-4D
- Date issued
- 2003-07-15
- Office of Primary Responsibility
- AEE-100, Environment and Energy Noise Division 
- Description
-  	Promotes uniformity of implementation of the noise certification requirements of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) by presenting technically acceptable test, analysis, and documentation procedures for subsonic turbojet airplanes that may be used by applicants for demonstrating compliance with Part 36. Where appropriate, FAA policy governing such certifications is reviewed. 
- Content
-    -  AC 36-4C  (PDF) 
  -  AC 36-4C Appendix 1 Only  (PDF) 
  -  AC 36-4C Appendix 2 Only  (PDF) 
  -  AC 36-4C Appendix 3 Only  (PDF) 
  -  AC 36-4C Appendix 4 Only  (PDF) 
- Cancels
-  CancelsNumberTitleDate36-4BNoise Certification Handbook												Promotes uniformity of implementation of the noise certification requirements of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) by presenting technically acceptable test, analysis, and documentation procedures for subsonic turbojet airplanes that may be used by applicants for demonstrating compliance with Part 36. Where appropriate, FAA policy governing such certifications is reviewed. 											1988-03-23 

## View All

      - Current Series 150 ACs
      - Cancelled Series 150 ACs
      - Draft Series 150 ACs
      - Advisory Circulars

## Export All

      - Current Series 150 ACs  (CSV)
      - Cancelled Series 150 ACs  (CSV)

## Top Requests

      - AC 150/5300-13B, Airport Design
      - AC 150/5320-6G, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation
      - AC 150/5370-10H, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports
      - AC 150/5340-1M, Standards for Airport Markings
      - AC 150/5340-30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids
      - AC 150/5390-2C, Heliport Design
§ 594.520 Authorizing Certain Transactions in Support of Nongovernmental Organizations' Activities. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, all transactions prohibited by this part that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the activities described in paragraph (b) of this section by a nongovernmental organization are authorized, provided that the nongovernmental organization is not a person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this part.
( b ) The activities referenced in paragraph (a) of this section are non-commercial activities designed to directly benefit the civilian population that fall into one of the following categories: ( 1 ) Activities to support humanitarian projects to meet basic human needs, including disaster, drought, or flood relief; food, nutrition, or medicine distribution; the provision of health services; assistance for vulnerable or displaced populations, including individuals with disabilities and the elderly; and environmental programs;
( 2 ) Activities to support democracy building, including activities to support rule of law, citizen participation, government accountability and transparency, human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to information, and civil society development projects;
( 3 ) Activities to support education, including combating illiteracy, increasing access to education, international exchanges, and assisting education reform projects;
( 4 ) Activities to support non-commercial development projects directly benefiting civilians, including those related to health, food security, and water and sanitation;
( 5 ) Activities to support environmental and natural resource protection, including the preservation and protection of threatened or endangered species, responsible and transparent management of natural resources, and the remediation of pollution or other environmental damage; and
( 6 ) Activities to support disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs and peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and conflict resolution programs.
( c ) This section does not authorize funds transfers initiated or processed with knowledge or reason to know that the intended beneficiary of such transfers is a person blocked pursuant to this part, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services.
( d ) Specific licenses may be issued on a case-by-case basis to authorize nongovernmental or other entities to engage in other activities designed to directly benefit the civilian population, including support for the removal of landmines and economic development projects directly benefiting the civilian population.
Note 1 to § 594.520 .
This section does not relieve any person authorized thereunder from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations.
[87 FR 78504, Dec. 21, 2022]
# C_2005217EN.01002202.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/22

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 21 June 2005

in Joined Cases C-162/03, C-185/03, C-44/04, C-45/04, C-223/04, C-224/04, C-271/04 and C-272/04: References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano in Azienda Agricola Balconi Andrea (ex Guido) v Regione Lombardia and Others, and in Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura and Others (1)

1

(Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Regulations (EEC) No 856/84 and No 3950/92 - Reference quantity - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Administrative penalties - Conditions)

(2005/C 217/43)

Language of the case: Italian

In Joined Cases C-162/03, C-185/03, C-44/04, C-45/04, C-223/04, C-224/04, C-271/04 and C-272/04: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) (C-162/03), made by decision of 21 February 2003, received at the Court on 7 April 2003, from the Tribunale di Tolmezzo (Italy) (C-185/03, C-271/04 and C-272/04), made by decisions of 16 April 2003 and 16 June 2004, received at the Court on 5 May 2003 and 25 June 2004 respectively, and from the Tribunale di Gorizia (Italy) (C-44/04, C-45/04, C-223/04 and C-224/04), made by decisions of 18 December 2003 and 7 April 2004, received at the Court on 4 February 2004 and 28 May 2004 respectively, in the proceedings between Azienda Agricola Balconi Andrea (ex Guido) (C-162/03) against Regione Lombardia, Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), and in the proceedings between Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa (C-185/03), Azienda Agricola Bogar Roberto e Andrea (C-44/04 and C-224/04), Azienda Agricola Bressan Aldo (C-45/04 and C-223/04), Azienda Agricola Di Doi Elena (C-271/04) and Azienda Agricola Piemonte Franco (C-272/04) against Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat FVG — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 21 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The additional levy established in respect of the milk and milk products sector by Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products, as amended by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984, and by Articles 1 to 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, is not an administrative penalty within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests.

---

(1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003

1

OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003

OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004

OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004

OJ C 201 of 07.08.2004.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2231

In re: DARRIUS A. HEUSER-WHITAKER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. (2:18-cr-00177-RAJ-LRL-4)

Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 1, 2024

Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrius A. Heuser-Whitaker, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2231 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Federal prisoner Darrius Heuser-Whitaker (“Petitioner”) has filed an original and a 

supplemental petition for a writ of mandamus asking this court to order Senior United 

States District Court Judge Raymond Jackson to either (1) grant Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion; or (2) answer Petitioner’s “Affidavit for Peremptory Mandamus to Depose 

Witness” (“Affidavit”). We conclude that Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to 

attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court recently ruled 

on Petitioner’s § 2255 motion. In doing so, the district court rejected Petitioner’s habeas 

claim predicated on a statement that was the impetus for the Affidavit. We therefore deny 

the mandamus petitions as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2231 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### William THOMPSON (Lee Ethel Wilson) v. IBERVILLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD and Griffon J. Bourgeois.

No. 65042.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Lee Ethel Wilson, applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Iberville, # 12,641, 372 So.2d 642.

Denied.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.

TATE and DENNIS, JJ.,

dissent. Would not disturb the trial court’s factual determination that the teacher kicked the student and that his method of disciplining the student was not only unreasonable under the circumstances but also contrary to school board policy.