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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           12917
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     123755
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           18207
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             18061
<LOANS>                                         199085
<ALLOWANCE>                                       3263
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  371963
<DEPOSITS>                                      266310
<SHORT-TERM>                                     56424
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2042
<LONG-TERM>                                      19514
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1057
<OTHER-SE>                                       26616
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  371963
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   4443
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2085
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  6528
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                2444
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3051
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             3477
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      105
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 155
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1987
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1987
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1421
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.67
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.65
<LOANS-NON>                                        252
<LOANS-PAST>                                        27
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   1443
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3153
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        9
<RECOVERIES>                                        14
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 3263
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              3263
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           2372
        

</TABLE>
I N THE S UPREME COURT OF THE S TATE OF MONTANA No
. DA 22-0716 S TATE OF MONTANA, Plaint iff and Appe lle e,
v . TRAVI S DEW AYNE LOHMAN, De fe ndant and Appe llant
.

ORDE R GRA N TING EXTE NSION UPON co nside rat io n o f Appe llant ’s m o tio n fo r e xt e nsio n o f t im e , as we ll as ag re e m e nt , I T I S HEREBY ORDERED t hat Appe llant is g rant ed an e x t e nsio n of t im e up t o and including Oct o be r 16, 2023, wit hin which t o pre pare , file , and se rv e Appe llant ’s ope ning brie f o n appe al.

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

September 25 2023

09/25/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0716
| (1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or                15 (d) of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | BY                /s/ Connie Woods Hawkins    |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:                Connie Woods Hawkins     |
|   | Title:                Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Date:                November 14, 2005        |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      21,449,467
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,247,660
<ALLOWANCES>                                   234,559
<INVENTORY>                                  5,516,599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,368,359
<PP&E>                                      28,694,352
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,656,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              65,449,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,685,143
<BONDS>                                      3,038,057
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       406,464
<OTHER-SE>                                  53,545,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                65,449,769
<SALES>                                     61,199,104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            61,199,104
<CGS>                                       35,473,693
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,239,970
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               182,133
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                19,920
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             182,133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,625,380
<INCOME-TAX>                               (3,528,637)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,985,203
<DISCONTINUED>                             (5,730,197)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (744,994)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 586.402 Effect of amendment.

Unless otherwise specifically provided, any amendment, modification, or revocation of any provision in or appendix to this part or chapter or of any order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license issued by OFAC does not affect any act done or omitted, or any civil or criminal proceeding commenced or pending, prior to such amendment, modification, or revocation. All penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities under any such order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license continue and may be enforced as if such amendment, modification, or revocation had not been made.
#### Dorothy Jill SINGLETARY v. Wayne P. PARKER, Registrar of the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the City of New Orleans, et al.

No. 11210.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 8, 1980.

Writ Refused March 3, 1980.

W. Matthew Campbell, III, New Orleans, for plaintiff.

*798Philip H. Kennedy, Louisiana Dept, of Health and Human Resources, New Orleans, for Stanley G. Brown, State Registrar of Division of Vital Statistics.

Before REDMANN, BOUTALL and CHEHARDY, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

REDMANN, Judge.

Because an order to a curator ad hoc to inspect in private plaintiff’s adoption record and to report findings in private to the judge (see La.C.C.P. 5091.2, La.R.S. 40:81 A, and *Massey v. Parker,*La.1979, 369 So.2d 1311) is interlocutory but is not “an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury,” C.C.P. 2083, it is not appeala-ble.

This appeal by the Registrar from such an order is therefore dismissed.
HomeAfghanistan

# Afghanistan

529 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 17, 2024	  Matthew MillerJanuary 17, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    DipNote: Countering Terrorism  		Working to Protect America from Terrorism Abroad	  January 5, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 4, 2024	  Matthew MillerJanuary 4, 2024 WASHINGTON, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 3, 2024	  Matthew MillerJanuary 3, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 18, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 18, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 13, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 13, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 11, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 11, 2023 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Leveraging Tools to Promote Accountability and Counter Global Corruption	  December 11, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Promoting Accountability for Corruption Globally 	  Antony J. BlinkenDecember 11, 2023 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Promoting Accountability in Support of the 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights	  December 8, 2023 

previous page123456…53next page

Back to Top
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2969

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 25, 1996

Received

AN ACT

To eliminate the Board of Tea Experts by repealing the

Tea Importation Act of 1897.

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 ‘‘Federal Tea Tasters

5 Repeal Act of 1996’’.
2

•HR 2969 RDS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF TEA IMPORTATION ACT OF 1897.

2 The Tea Importation Act (21 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is

3 repealed.

4 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

5 This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment

6 of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives March 21,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5715

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus DOUGLAS BRADLEY, a/k/a New York Dougie, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-26) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Thomas Love, Jr., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Urban Baer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Douglas Bradley appeals from the imposition of a ninety-month sentence for distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.§ 841(a)(1) (1988). Bradley's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one potentially meritorious issueC that certified copies of Bradley'sprior convictions demonstrating the fact of prior legal representation should not have been considered by the sentencing courtbecause Bradley did not learn of their existence in time to sufficiently investigate their validity. Without these copies, the attorney argues, there would be no evidence that Bradley was represented on either of these convictions and therefore they could not have been used to increase his criminal history category under Burgett v. Texas , 389 U.S. 109 (1967). During the sentencing hearing Bradley's counsel expressed a desire to have more time to investigate the certified copies of conviction but failed to specifically object to their admission. Accordingly, as we discern no evidence of plain error, we hold that Bradley has waived review of this claim. United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 (1993). In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined the entire record in this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Bradley's sentence and require that counsel inform Bradley, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Bradley requests that a petition be filed, but3 counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, thencounsel may move this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Bradley. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### § 700.9 Photographs for news, advertising, or commercial purposes.

Photographs for news, advertising, or commercial purposes may be taken on the property only with the prior permission of the Director. Taking photographs of a student is prohibited without the consent of the student.
# C_2005155EN.01001602.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/16

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 April 2005

in Case T-286/03 The Gillette Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport - Earlier national figurative mark WILKINSON SWORD XTREME III - Likelihood of confusion - Refusal of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 155/32)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-286/03: The Gillette Company, established in Boston (United States of America), represented by A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and L. Kouker, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Schneider and J. Weberndörfer), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being Wilkinson Sword GmbH, established in Solingen (Germany), represented by E. Kessler, lawyer — action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 April 2003 (Case R 221/2002-4), refusing registration of the figurative mark RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánová, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 April 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.

1

---
#### § 547.402 Effect of amendment.

Unless otherwise specifically provided, any amendment, modification, or revocation of any provision in or appendix to this part or chapter or of any order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license issued by OFAC does not affect any act done or omitted, or any civil or criminal proceeding commenced or pending, prior to such amendment, modification, or revocation. All penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities under any such order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license continue and may be enforced as if such amendment, modification, or revocation had not been made.
#### Julio C. BERRIEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-398.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 27, 1979.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1979.

Brian R. McComb, Miami, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and James H. Greason, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY and SCHWARTZ, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Walker v. State,*196 So.2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); *United States v. Barone,*330 F.2d 543 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1004, 84 S.Ct. 1940, 12 L.Ed.2d 1053 (1964); *Winchell v. State,*362 So.2d 992, 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cytogen Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned,
Michael D. Becker,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, based upon my knowledge:

     (1)  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.

     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.



                                   /s/ Michael D. Becker
                                   ---------------------------------------------
Dated:   May 10, 2006              Michael D. Becker, President
                                   and Chief Executive Officer
                                   (Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 588.802 Delegation of certain authorities of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Any action that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to take pursuant to E.O. 13219 of June 26, 2001, as amended by E.O. 13304 of May 28, 2003, E.O. 14033 of June 8, 2021, and any further Executive orders relating to the national emergency declared therein, may be taken by the Director of OFAC or by any other person to whom the Secretary of the Treasury has delegated authority so to act.
# Burkina Faso

74 items

        -    Media Note  		Winners of the 2023 Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence	  October 19, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Burkina Faso	  June 15, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Burkina Faso	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Burkina Faso	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		$150 Million in New Humanitarian Assistance for the Sahel Region and West and Central Africa	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 16, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2021: Burkina Faso	  February 27, 2023 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2023 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Burkina Faso, Niger, and Senegal	  February 10, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 26, 2023	  Vedant PatelJanuary 26, 2023Washington, D.C.  
        -    Press Statement  		Abductions in Northern Burkina Faso	  Ned PriceJanuary 16, 2023 

previous page1234…8next page

Back to Top
Exhibit 4.3




---



##### 



TEN COM
    
    -
    
    as tenants in common
    
    UNIF GIFT MIN ACT-
    
    
    
    CustodianTEN ENT
    
    -
    
    as tenants by the entireties
    
    
    
    (Cust)
    
    

    (Minor)JT TEN
    
    -
    
    as joint tenants with right of survivorship
    
    under Uniform Gifts to Minors Actand not as tenants in common
    
    
    
    
    
    (State)UNIF TRF MIN ACT
    
    
    
    Custodian (until age  )(CUST)
    
    
    
    (MINOR)under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act(STATE)
 
 
 
  
 
 Sharesof the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably
constitute and appointAttorneyto transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Company with full power of
substitution in the premises.
 Dated:
    
    

    20Signature:Signature:NOTE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT
MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS
WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE
CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR,
WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR
ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
§ 585.510 Official business of certain international organizations and entities. All transactions prohibited by this part that are for the conduct of the official business of the following entities by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof are authorized: ( a ) The United Nations, including its Programmes, Funds, and Other Entities and Bodies, as well as its Specialized Agencies and Related Organizations;
( b ) The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA);
( c ) The African Development Bank Group, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group), including any fund entity administered or established by any of the foregoing;
( d ) The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; and
( e ) The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
[87 FR 78480, Dec. 21, 2022]
#### The SPORTS AUTHORITY MICHIGAN, INC., by merger with Intelligent Sports, Inc. and the Sports Authority, Inc., Appellants, v. HANOVER CATALOG HOLDINGS, INC. and Hanover Direct, Inc., Appellees.

No. 01-1086.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 26, 2001.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

*832ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).