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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Century
Properties Fund XVIII 1998 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000704271
<NAME> CENTURY PROPERTIES FUND XVIII
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,477
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      501
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          27,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,292
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         19,457
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (797)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,292
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,893
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,451
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,469
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.31<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2006022EN.01002604.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/26

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 2005 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM

(Case T-257/05) (1)

1

(2006/C 22/53)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.

1

---
#### Harvey PIXLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-1139.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 1, 1981.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Barbara Ann Butler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Day-tona Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s split sentence is reversed for resentencing in conformity with *Villery v. The Florida Parole and Probation Commission,*396 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1981) [1981 F.L.W. 313], a decision which was not available to the trial judge because it issued after the sentencing in this case.

REVERSED.

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.

COWART, J., dissents with opinion.

COWART, Judge,

dissenting:

I dissent for the reasons expressed in the dissent to *Wesley v. State,*400 So.2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
HomeSolomon Islands

# Solomon Islands

57 items

        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL – Promoting Investigative Journalism and Anti-Corruption Efforts in Pacific Island Countries	  February 16, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Solomon Islands	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Solomon Islands	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Solomon Islands	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Solomon Islands	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Solomon Islands	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Solomon Islands	  April 22, 2019 
        -    Report  		Solomon Islands	  March 13, 2019 
        -    Report  		Solomon Islands	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Solomon Islands	  May 29, 2018 

previous page1…3456next page

Back to Top
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

# SUMMARY:

The USDA Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest will not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposal to treat approximately 4,637 acres of selected plantations on the Georgetown and Pacific Ranger Districts with a combination of mechanical precommercial thinning and control of competitive vegetation using mechanical and chemical treatments.

                        The Notice of intent for this project was published in                         **Federal Register**                         Vol. 71. No. 195, October 10, 2006/Notices pages 59428-59429.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dana Walsh, Georgetown Ranger District, 7600 Wentworth Springs Rd., Georgetown, CA 95634, or by telephone at 530-333-4312.

Ramiro Villalvazo,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. E9-21420 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
§ 401.613 Compromise of claims. ( a ) *Amount of compromise.* HFCA requires that the amount to be recovered through a compromise of a claim must— ( 1 ) Bear a reasonable relation to the amount of the claim; and
( 2 ) Be recoverable through enforced collection procedures.
( b ) *General factors.* After considering the bases for a decision to compromise a claim under paragraph (c) of this section, CMS may further consider factors such as— ( 1 ) The age and health of the debtor if the debtor is an individual;
( 2 ) Present and potential income of the debtor; and
( 3 ) Whether assets have been concealed or improperly transferred by the debtor.
( c ) *Basis for compromise.* Bases on which CMS may compromise a claim include the following— ( 1 ) *Inability to pay.* CMS may compromise a claim if it determines that the debtor, or the estate of a deceased debtor, does not have the present or prospective ability to pay the full amount of the claim within a reasonable time.
( 2 ) *Litigative probabilities.* CMS may compromise a claim if it determines that it would be difficult to prevail in a case before a court of law as a result of the legal issues involved or inability of the parties to agree to the facts of the case. The amount that CMS accepts in compromise under this provision will reflect— ( i ) The likelihood that CMS would have prevailed on the legal question(s) involved;
( ii ) Whether and to what extent CMS would have obtained a full or partial recovery of a judgment, depending on the availability of witnesses, or other evidentiary support for CMS's claim; and
( iii ) The amount of court costs that would be assessed to CMS.
( 3 ) *Cost of collecting the claim.* CMS may compromise a claim if it determines that the cost of collecting the claim does not justify the enforced collection of the full amount. In this case, CMS may adjust the amount it accepts as a compromise to allow an appropriate discount for the costs of collection it would have incurred but for the compromise.
( d ) *Enforcement policy.* CMS may compromise statutory penalties, forfeitures, or debts established as an aid to enforcement or to compel compliance, if it determines that its enforcement policy, in terms of deterrence and securing compliance both present and future, is adequately served by acceptance of the compromise amount.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129942 & (29) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129942 

 COA: 255815 
 Wayne CC: 97-002504

SIDNEY J. GORDON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion for miscellaneous relief is DENIED. 

d0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 December 2005

in Case C-144/05: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/59/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 48/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-144/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Simonsson and W. Wils) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: M. Wimmer) — ACTION for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations pursuant to Article 226 EC, brought on 30 March 2005– the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.

----
**EXHIBIT31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a)OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934**

I, Karen L.Johannes, certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of Paulson Capital Corp.;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

**(a)**          Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         [Reserved.]

**(c)**          Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

**(d)**         Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

**(a)**          All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

**(b)**         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 30,2007
| /s/ Karen L. Johannes    |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Karen L.  Johannes       |   |
| Chief Financial  Officer |   |
| Paulson Capital  Corp.   |   |

 

----
#### § 136.334 Publication of a list of recipients.

The Secretary, acting through the Service, will publish annually in the Federal Register a list of recipients of Indian Health Scholarships, including the name of each recipient, tribal affiliation if applicable, and school.
699 A.2d 729

#### Luis RODRIQUEZ and Teresa Rodriquez, husband and wife, v. LEHMAN EQUIPMENT SALES, INC., and Barliant and Company, v. Luis RODRIQUEZ and Teresa Rodriquez, husband and wife, v. BARLIANT AND COMPANY, v. NESTLE FROZEN FOOD CORPORATION and Millard Manufacturing Corp.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 16, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 1997, it is ordered that Petitioner’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal if GRANTED; and the order of the Superior Court reversing the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County transferring venue from Philadelphia County to County and remanding the matter to Philadelphia County for further proceedings is AFFIRMED on the basis of this court’s opinion in *Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminators, Inc.,*No. 56 E.D. Appeal Docket 1996, and *Forman v. Rossman,*et al., No. 57 E.D. Appeal Docket 1996, — Pa. -, 701 A.2d 156 (1997).

NIGRO, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
# Somalia

91 items

        -    Media Note  		Rewards for Justice – Reward Offer for Information on Abukar Ali Adan	  October 17, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Phee’s Travel to Ankara, Türkiye	  October 10, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Designating Senior ISIS-Somalia Financier	  Matthew MillerJuly 27, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Somalia National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 1, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Somalia	  June 27, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: 	  June 15, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Attack on the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia	  Matthew MillerMay 26, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Terrorist Designation of al-Shabaab Leaders	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 24, 2023 
        -    DipNote  		Training Together to Save Lives: The State Department and Department of Defense Prepare for U.S. Citizen Evacuations	  May 23, 2023 

previous page1234…10next page

Back to Top
#### Vankirk *v.*McKee.

The recital in an award that the parties had been heard, is conclusive in a court of error, that the parties appeared, and thus waived the want of notice of the time and place of meeting.

Iif error from the Common Pleas of Allegheny.

Two questions were raised on the record. 1st, The jurisdiction of the justice. The action was entered by him “ Debt in assumpsit for damages for the breach of ■ a parol agreement for the sale of flour.” The *narr.*on the appeal was in assumpsit for the nondelivery of flour.

2d, The cause was referred and an award filed, which recited, “ having heard the parties, their proofs, &c.” The defendant filed an affidavit that ho had never received notice of the time and place of meeting; but the court refused to set aside the award, or strike out the recital above stated.

Alden, for plaintiff in error.

*Kuhn,*contra.

*Sept.*11.

Per Curiam.

There is no force in the objection to the inceptive jurisdiction. The plaintiff demanded damages before *101the magistrate, for not delivering a quantity of flour; and that is what he demanded in the form of an action of assumpsit in the Common Pleas on appeal.

Neither is the exception to want of notice of the meeting of the arbitrators, better founded. Appearance has always been held to cure it; and the arbitrators reported they had heard the parties. If they reported falsely, they were guilty of misconduct, for which the court might have set aside the award; and an application to do so was actually made, but on the affidavit of the defendant alone, which was clearly insufficient. But as the application raised a question of fact depending on parol proof, and involving the credibility of witnesses, we would be incompetent to judge of the decision, even if there had been proper testimony. The evidence not being matter of record, could not be brought up; and nothing would appear in the cause on which we could adjudicate. But were it otherwise, we could not determine the fact so safely as those who had not only heard, but seen the witnesses; and for that reason we have always refused to hear affidavits on a writ of error. As to the application to strike out a part of the award, it is too plain for remark, that the court had no power to grant it.

Judgment affirmed.
§ 405.809 Reinstatement of provider or supplier billing privileges following corrective action. ( a ) *General rule.* A provider or supplier— ( 1 ) May only submit a corrective action plan for a revocation for noncompliance under § 424.535(a)(1) of this chapter; and
( 2 ) Subject to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, has only one opportunity to correct all deficiencies that served as the basis of its revocation through a corrective action plan.
( b ) *Review of a corrective action plan.* Subject to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, CMS or its contractor reviews a submitted corrective action plan and does either of the following: ( 1 ) Reinstates the provider or supplier's billing privileges if the provider or supplier provides sufficient evidence to CMS or its contractor that it has complied fully with the Medicare requirements, in which case— ( i ) The effective date of the reinstatement is based on the date the provider or supplier is in compliance with all Medicare requirements; and
( ii ) CMS or its contractor may pay for services furnished on or after the effective date of the reinstatement.
( 2 ) Refuses to reinstate a provider or supplier's billing privileges. The refusal of CMS or its contractor to reinstate a provider or supplier's billing privileges based on a corrective action plan is not an initial determination under part 498 of this chapter.
[79 FR 72530, Dec. 5, 2014]
Order entered November 25, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01085-CR

No. 05-19-01086-CR

EDUARDO GUADALUPE GONZALEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 2-19-0187 and 2-19-0188

ORDER

Before the Court is the November 21, 2019 motion to substitute counsel. We GRANT

the motion. We DIRECT the Clerk to remove Sharita Blacknall and to list Niles Illich as 

counsel of record for appellant. All future correspondence should be sent to Niles Illich, Scott H. 

Palmer, P.C., 15455 Dallas Parkway, Suite 540, Addison, Texas 75001.

Also before the Court is appellant’s November 21, 2019 motion for extension of time to 

file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief due on or before December 

27, 2019.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
§ 37.101 Approval of plans. ( a ) If, after review of any plan submitted pursuant to this subpart, NIOSH determines that the action to be taken under the plan by the operator meets the specifications of this subpart and will effectively achieve its purpose, NIOSH will approve the plan and notify the operator submitting the plan of the approval. Approval may be conditioned upon such terms as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the purpose of section 203 of the Act.
( b ) Where NIOSH has reason to believe that it will deny approval of a plan NIOSH will, prior to the denial, give notice in writing to the operator(s) of an opportunity to amend the plan. The notice must specify the ground(s) upon which approval is proposed to be denied.
( c ) If a plan is denied approval, NIOSH will advise the operator(s) in writing of the reasons for the denial and inform MSHA that the plan was denied.
[81 FR 73290, Oct. 24, 2016]
# Yemen

313 items

        -    Report  		Yemen	  March 3, 2017 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Peace and Security  		Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction – Metrics Implementation (Summary)	  February 29, 2016 
        -    		Moa’ath Farhan  Shyef	  November 26, 2014 
        -    DS Memorial  		Moa’ath Farhan Shyef	  November 26, 2014 
        -    		Qassim  Aklan	  October 11, 2012 
        -    DS Memorial  		Qassim Aklan	  October 11, 2012 
        -    DS Memorial  		Noman Ahmed Al-Hamili	  September 17, 2009 
        -    		Thabit Ahmed Mohammed  Al-Samawi	  September 17, 2008 
        -    		Ali Saleh Murshed  Al-Jawfi	  September 17, 2008 
        -    		Mansour Hassan Mahyoub  Al-Hamodi	  September 17, 2008 

previous page1…2829303132next page

Back to Top
Exhibit 99.1

              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 Merchants
Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ending June 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Joseph L. Boutin, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION]1350, as adopted
pursuant to [SECTION]906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of 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 the results of operations of the
Company.

                                       Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

                                       By: /s/ Joseph L. Boutin
                                           --------------------
                                           Joseph L. Boutin
                                           President and Chief Executive
                                            Officer

                                           August 14, 2002
                                           ---------------
                                           Date