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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SOMANETICS CORPORATION AS OF, AND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDED, NOVEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,976,829
<SECURITIES>                                 4,916,942
<RECEIVABLES>                                  768,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                   153,000
<INVENTORY>                                    660,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,262,467
<PP&E>                                       1,661,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                 957,083
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,046,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          629,154
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,356
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,357,437
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,046,947
<SALES>                                      2,490,851
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,490,851
<CGS>                                        1,326,160
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,326,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,011,469
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,469,832)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,469,832)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,469,832)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 136a.2 Administrative instructions.

The Service periodically issues administrative instructions to its officers and employees which are primarily found in the Indian Health Service Manual and the Area Office and Program Office supplements. These instructions are operating procedures to assist officers and employees in carrying out their responsibilities, and are not regulations establishing program requirements which are binding upon members of the general public.

[46 FR 40692, Aug. 11, 1981. Redesignated at 52 FR 35048, Sept. 16, 1987]
# C_2005182EN.01002401.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep by order of that court of 22 April 2005 in K. Tas-Hagen and R.A. Tas v Raadskamer WUBO van de Pensioen- en Uitkeringsraad

(Case C-192/05)

(2005/C 182/44)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court) (Netherlands) of 22 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between K. Tas-Hagen and R.A. Tas and Raadskamer WUBO van de Pensioen- en Uitkeringsraad (Pension and Benefits Board Advisory Chamber on the Law on Benefits for Civilian War Victims) on the following question:

Does Community law, in particular Article 18 EC, preclude national legislation under which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the grant of a benefit for civilian war victims is refused solely on the ground that the person concerned, who holds the nationality of the relevant Member State, was resident, not in the territory of that Member State, but in the territory of another Member State at the time when the application was submitted?

---
§ 37.201 Definitions. As used in this subpart: ( a ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
( b ) *Miner* means any individual who during their life was employed in any coal mine.
( c ) *Pathologist* means: ( 1 ) A physician certified in anatomic pathology or pathology by the American Board of Pathology or the American Osteopathic Board of Pathology,
( 2 ) A physician who possesses qualifications which are considered board-eligible by the American Board of Pathology or American Osteopathic Board of Pathology, or
( 3 ) An intern, resident, or other physician in a training program in pathology who performs the autopsy under the supervision of a pathologist as defined in paragraph (c) (1) or (2) of this section.
( d ) *NIOSH* means the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, located within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Within NIOSH, the Respiratory Health Division (formerly called the Division of Respiratory Disease Studies and the Appalachian Laboratory for Occupational Safety and Health) is the organizational unit that has programmatic responsibility for the medical examination and surveillance program.
[86 FR 24338, May 6, 2021]
#### John S. NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. LL-91, LL-457.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 2, 1979.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Nelson appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana, contending that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the seized marijuana. We agree.

Appellant was stopped by Inspector Ed-monds after he drove a pickup truck past an agricultural inspection station. The inspector, with permission, observed black plastic garbage bags in the back of the truck. Thereafter, Nelson denied three separate requests to search the bags. Finally, after a deputy explained to appellant that he could give consent even though appellant claimed the truck and bags did not belong to him, Nelson consented. However, consent came only when the deputy began placing a call to the state attorney’s office in an attempt to obtain a search warrant. By this time, appellant had been detained an hour and a half. The testimony of the officials as to their efforts during this period in attempting to obtain appellant’s consent to the search was conflicting and contradictory. Considering only the officials’ testimony, there is testimony that appellant was told that if he did not consent, they would *get*a search warrant and also that he was told that if he did not consent, they would *attempt*to get a search warrant.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, it does not appear that Nelson consented merely because the deputy told him he *could*consent. See *Villari v. State,*372 So.2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In a similar *460case, *Seuss v. State,*370 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), this court reversed an order denying suppression stating:

> “Here, Seuss had been detained for more than an hour; he had refused repeated requests that he open the vehicle and allow the agents to inspect; he was informed that he could not leave until the vehicle was searched; and the supervisor represented that if Seuss continued to refuse, he could get authority to search anyway. ... If the agents had probable cause with which to get a warrant, they should have done so rather than detain Seuss for over an hour while attempting to obtain his ‘consent.’ ”

The record in this case fails to show that the state met its burden to produce clear and convincing evidence showing appellant’s voluntary consent to search the bags. *Rose v. State,*369 So.2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The trial court’s denial of appellant’s suppression motion is REVERSED.

McCORD, Acting C. J., SHIVERS, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8014

STEPHEN LUCI, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. THOMAS L. MCBRIDE, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Respondents – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00011-REM-JES)

Submitted: May 18, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2009

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Luci, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Robert David Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stephen Luci appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. Because the district court granted a certificate of appealability, we review all claims properly preserved by Luci on appeal on their merits. We have thoroughly examined the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Luci v. McBride , No. 3:07-cv-00011-REM-JES (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 26, 2008). Although we grant Luci’s motion to exceed page limits for his informal brief, 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
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases…Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Republic of Korea First Vice Foreign Minister Kim

# 											Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Republic of Korea First Vice Foreign Minister Kim									

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

May 31, 2024

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:

Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell met with Republic of Korea First Vice Foreign Minister Kim Hong Kyun today in Washington, D.C. Deputy Secretary Campbell and Vice Foreign Minister Kim emphasized the crucial role of the U.S.-ROK Alliance in promoting peace, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region and globally. They also highlighted the importance of maintaining a strong U.S.-ROK-Japan trilateral relationship ahead of their May 31 trilateral meeting with Japanese Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Okano Masataka.

During their discussion, Deputy Secretary Campbell and First Vice Foreign Minister Kim touched upon the expanding U.S.-ROK economic partnership and reaffirmed their commitment to working closely together to address global challenges while promoting shared democratic values. The two officials condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s hostile rhetoric, actions, and ongoing human rights abuses. They also discussed support to Ukraine in the face of Russia’s brutal war and shared insights on the People’s Republic of China, emphasizing the need to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and uphold the rules-based international order. They also addressed the ongoing efforts to provide humanitarian support to Gaza, highlighting the importance of international cooperation in alleviating the suffering of innocent civilians.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonSouth Korea

Back to Top
# C_2006012EN.01000801.xml

| 18.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 12/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 12/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4032 — VSE/Cegedel/JV)

(2006/C 12/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 December 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 32005M4032. 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 32005M4032. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
§ 403.906 Reports of physician ownership and investment interests. ( a ) *General rule.* ( 1 ) Each applicable manufacturer and applicable group purchasing organization must report to CMS on an annual basis all ownership and investment interests in the applicable manufacturer or applicable group purchasing organization that were held by a physician or an immediate family member of a physician during the preceding calendar year.
( 2 ) For CY 2013, only ownership or investment interests held on or after August 1, 2013 must be reported to CMS.
( b ) *Identifying information.* Reports on physician ownership and investment interests must include the following identifying information: ( 1 ) Name of the physician (as listed in the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System (if applicable), including first and last name, middle initial, and suffix (for all that apply), and an indication of whether the ownership or investment interest was held by the physician or an immediate family member of the physician.
( 2 ) Primary business address of the physician, including the following: ( i ) Street address.
( ii ) Suite or office number (if applicable).
( iii ) City.
( iv ) State.
( v ) ZIP code.
( 3 ) The following information for the physician (regardless of whether the ownership or investment interest is held by an immediate family member of the physician): ( i ) The specialty.
( ii ) National Provider Identifier (if applicable and as listed in NPPES).
( iii ) State professional license number(s) (for at least one State where the physician maintains a license), and the State(s) in which the license is held.
( 4 ) Dollar amount invested by each physician or immediate family member of the physician.
( 5 ) Value and terms of each ownership or investment interest.
( 6 ) Direct and indirect payments or other transfers of value provided to a physician holding an ownership or investment interest, and direct and indirect payments or other transfers of value provided to a third party at the request of or designated by the applicable manufacturer or applicable group purchasing organization on behalf of a physician owner or investor, must be reported by the applicable manufacturer or applicable group purchasing organization in accordance with the requirements for reporting payments or other transfers of value in § 403.904(c) through (h). The terms “applicable manufacturer and applicable group purchasing organization” must be substituted for “applicable manufacturer,” and “physician owner or investor” must be substituted for “covered recipient” in each place they appear.
[78 FR 9521, Feb. 8, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 68001, Nov. 13, 2014]
# C_2005229EN.01003302.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/33

---

Action brought on 14 July 2005 against the Commission of the European Communities by Christos Michail

(Case T-284/05)

(2005/C 229/71)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 2005 by Christos Michail, resident in Brussels, Belgium, represented by Charalambos Meidanis, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested acts/decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested acts/decisions;

| — | order that financial reparation be made for non-material damage in the amount of EUR 90 000 (ninety thousand); |
| --- | --- |

—

order that financial reparation be made for non-material damage in the amount of EUR 90 000 (ninety thousand);

| — | make an order as to costs as laid down by law. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order as to costs as laid down by law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a Commission official, seeks the annulment of his career development report for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.12.2003 and an order that financial reparation be made for the non-material damage which he claims to have suffered. He claims in support of his application that the report in question did not contain a description of his post, since, moreover, as he claims, during the period in question he simply did not occupy any post. He also claims that the report in question did not even contain a description of his individual objective goals to be attained and did not contain any reasoning for the points he was given; it was drawn up by a body and person having no competence to do so; it was not drawn up on the basis of his actual work but was based on the assessments of an earlier staff report. In the light of all the foregoing the applicant claims that there was infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and all the implementing provisions, infringement of Article 12a of those Staff Regulations, which refers to psychological harassment, manifest error of assessment as regards the facts, non-existent or otherwise insufficient reasons for the acts challenged, misuse of powers on the part of the Commission and infringement of the principle of fair and equal treatment of staff and the principle of sound administration.

---
H. R. 2773

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction

of 2 hydroelectric projects in North Carolina, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

(a) PROJECT NUMBERED 10812.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period specified

in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that

would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission Project No. 10812, the Commission shall, at the

request of the licensee for the project, and after reasonable

notice, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and

public interest requirements of that section and the Commission’s procedures under that section, extend the time period

during which the licensee is required to commence the construction of the project, under the extension described in paragraph

(2), for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year periods.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection shall take effect on

the date of the expiration of the extension of the period required

for commencement of construction of the project described in

paragraph (1) that the Commission issued, prior to the date

of enactment of this Act, under section 13 of the Federal Power

Act (16 U.S.C. 806).

(b) PROJECT NUMBERED 6879.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period specified

in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that

would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission Project No. 6879, the Commission may, at the

request of the licensee for the project, and after reasonable

notice, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and

public interest requirements of that section and the Commission’s procedures under that section, extend the time period

during which the licensee is required to commence the construction of the project for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year

periods.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection shall take effect on

the date of the expiration of the period required for commence-
H. R. 2773—2

ment of construction of the project under the license for the

project.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### § 91.10 Photographs.

The taking of photographs on the property is prohibited, without the written permission of the Director of the Mint.
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ MASTEROBJECTS, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant

- Appellee

______________________
2023

- 1066

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 3:20

- cv

- 08103

- WHA

, Judge William H. Alsup.

______________________
O R D E R The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceed ing is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). Case: 23-1066 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 12/19/2022M ASTER O BJECTS , I NC

. V

. A MAZON

. COM , I NC

. 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

December 19, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 19, 2022 Case: 23-1066 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 12/19/2022
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6050

GARY GLENN ROBERTS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-02-124-2)

Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 28, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Glenn Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Glenn Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roberts

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S.Ct. 1029

(2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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