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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CENTOCOR
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CENTOCOR INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          16,002
<SECURITIES>                                   115,435
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,137
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,783
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               168,969
<PP&E>                                         142,864
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,727
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 260,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,137
<BONDS>                                        231,640
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           585
<OTHER-SE>                                    (29,981)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   260,284
<SALES>                                         65,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,916
<CGS>                                           29,166
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,166
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                97,053
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,001
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (57,132)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (57,132)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (57,132)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.98)
        

</TABLE>
§ 426.450 Mandatory provisions of an ALJ's decision. ( a ) *Findings.* An ALJ's decision must include one of the following: ( 1 ) A determination that the provision of the LCD is valid under the reasonableness standard.
( 2 ) A determination that the provision of the LCD is not valid under the reasonableness standard.
( 3 ) A statement dismissing the complaint regarding the LCD and a rationale for the dismissal.
( 4 ) A determination that the LCD record is complete and adequate to support the validity of the LCD provisions under the reasonableness standard.
( b ) *Other information.* An ALJ's decision must include all of the following: ( 1 ) The date of issuance.
( 2 ) The docket number of the LCD review.
( 3 ) A statement as to whether the aggrieved party has filed a claim for the service(s) named in the complaint, the date(s)-of-service, and the disposition, if known.
( 4 ) A basis for concluding that the LCD was or was not valid based on the application of the reasonableness standard to the record before the ALJ, including the contractor's: ( i ) Findings of fact.
( ii ) Interpretations of law.
( iii ) Applications of fact to law.
( 5 ) A summary of the evidence reviewed. If proprietary or privileged data were submitted under seal, the decision must state whether the data were material and what role they played in the determination, but without disclosing the substance or contents of the evidence under seal. A separate statement of the rationale for the ALJ's treatment of the sealed evidence must be prepared and kept under seal itself. If the ALJ decision is appealed to the Board, this statement must be provided to the Board under seal.
( 6 ) A statement regarding appeal rights.
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.1600 Purpose and definitions. ( a ) *Purpose.* This subpart implements section 1834(z) of the Act and establishes procedures for making benefit category determinations and payment determinations for lymphedema compression treatment items.
( b ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this subpart the following definitions apply: *Benefit category determination* means a national determination regarding whether an item or service meets the Medicare definition of lymphedema compression treatment item at section 1861(mmm) of the Act and the rules of this subpart and is not otherwise excluded from coverage by statute.
*Lymphedema compression treatment item* means an item as described in § 410.2.
# C_2006141EN.01000802.xml

| 16.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4096 — Carrefour/Hyparlo)

(2006/C 141/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 4 May 2006, 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 French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 32006M4096. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4096. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
§ 425.222 Eligibility to re-enter the program for agreement periods beginning before July 1, 2019. ( a ) For purposes of determining the eligibility of a re-entering ACO to enter an agreement period beginning before July 1, 2019, the ACO may participate in the Shared Savings Program again only after the date on which the term of its original participation agreement would have expired if the ACO had not been terminated.
( b ) For purposes of determining the eligibility of a re-entering ACO to enter an agreement period beginning before July 1, 2019, an ACO whose participation agreement was previously terminated must demonstrate in its application that it has corrected the deficiencies that caused it to be terminated from the Shared Savings Program and has processes in place to ensure that it remains in compliance with the terms of the new participation agreement.
( c ) For purposes of determining the eligibility of a re-entering ACO to enter an agreement period beginning before July 1, 2019, an ACO whose participation agreement was previously terminated or expired without having been renewed may re-enter the program for a subsequent agreement period. ( 1 ) If the termination occurred less than half way through the agreement period, an ACO that was previously under a one-sided model may reenter the program under the one-sided model or a two-sided model. If the ACO reenters the program under the one-sided model, the ACO will be considered to be in the same agreement period under the one-sided model as it was at the time of termination.
( 2 ) If the termination occurred more than half way through the agreement period, an ACO that was previously in its first agreement period under the one-sided model may reenter the program under the one-sided model or a two-sided model. If the ACO reenters the program under the one-sided model, the ACO will be considered to be in its second agreement period under the one-sided model. An ACO that was previously in its second agreement period under the one-sided model must reenter the program under a two-sided model.
( 3 ) Regardless of the date of termination, an ACO that was previously under a two-sided model may only reapply for participation in a two-sided model.
[76 FR 67973, Nov. 2, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 32839, June 9, 2015; 83 FR 68065, Dec. 31, 2018]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Verma’s Meeting with Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne

# 									Deputy Secretary Verma’s Meeting with Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

May 31, 2024

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:

Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources Richard R. Verma met with Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister Gaston Browne on the margins of the UN Conference on Small Island Developing States in St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda on Wednesday May,29. Deputy Secretary Verma congratulated Antigua and Barbuda on a successful conference and highlighted our continued collaboration on climate adaptation and accelerating the clean energy transition through the U.S.-Caribbean Partnership to Address the Climate Crisis 2030. The Deputy Secretary and Prime Minister also discussed security cooperation through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, including assistance to address illicit trafficking and to strengthen citizen security.

Tags

Antigua and BarbudaBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCaribbean Basin Security InitiativeClimate ChangeDeputy Secretary of State for Management and ResourcesEnergyOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
Home1993 Treaties and Agreements...Germany (93-311) – Supplementary Treaty to Extradition Treaty of June 20, 1978

# 									Germany (93-311) – Supplementary Treaty to Extradition Treaty of June 20, 1978							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

March 11, 1993

Law Enforcement:  Extradition

Supplementary treaty to the treaty of June 20, 1978. Signed at Washington October 21, 1986; Transmitted by the President of the United States of America to the Senate June 25, 1987 (Treaty Doc. 100-6, 100th Congress, 1st Session); Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations May 7, 1992 (Senate Executive Report No. 102-28, 102d Congress, 2d Session); Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate May 13, 1992; Ratified by the President October 9, 1992; Exchange of instruments of ratification at Bonn March 11, 1993; entered into force March 11, 1993.
Download Agreements						 [3 MB]

Tags

GermanyTreaties

Back to Top
### Landsat Brings Understanding to the Impact of Industrialization

By: U.S. Geological Survey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20163054

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (885 kB pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Version History:  **Version History**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

First posted August 24, 2016

Revised September 19, 2019

**For additional information, contact:**
Director, Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) CenterU.S. Geological Survey47914 252nd StreetSioux Falls, SD 57198

In his 1963 book, “The Quiet Crisis,” former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall lamented what he called the decline of natural resources in the United States under the advancements of industrialization and urbanization.

#### Suggested Citation

U.S. Geological Survey, 2016, Landsat brings understanding to the impact of industrialization (ver. 1.1, September 2019): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2016–3054, 2 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20163054.

ISSN: 2327-6932 (online)

ISSN: 2327-6916 (print)

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.154 Informal reconsideration for ICFs/IID. The informal reconsideration must, at a minimum, include— ( a ) Written notice to the facility of the denial, termination or nonrenewal and the findings upon which it was based;
( b ) A reasonable opportunity for the facility to refute those findings in writing, and
( c ) A written affirmation or reversal of the denial, termination, or nonrenewal.
[44 FR 9753, Feb. 15, 1979, as amended at 59 FR 56233, Nov. 10, 1994; 61 FR 32349, June 24, 1996]
#### Sergio GOMEZ, Appellant, v. Esther COUVERTIER, Appellee.

No. 81-1586.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 16, 1982.

Albert G. Siegel, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Clark, Dick & Lancaster, South Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and SCHWARTZ and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

Gomez, a general contractor, appeals from a $8,538.00 judgment entered after a non-jury trial in an action based on alleged construction defects in the residence he built for the plaintiff-appellee.

Since there was no evidence that Gomez was either expressly or impliedly obliged to do so, we agree with his claim that the court incorrectly awarded $1,500 expended for refacing non-defective steel patio columns with brick, which was accomplished simply because the plaintiff preferred that surface. *Home Development Co. of St. Petersburg v. Bursani,*178 So.2d 113 (Fla.1965).

The appellant’s other contention is that the plaintiff’s expert witness, also a *1175general contractor, was erroneously permitted to rely upon the estimate of his tile subcontractor to establish the cost of repairing defective tile work at the home. This point is without merit. Section 90.704, Fla. Stat. (1979) (“If the facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinion expressed, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.”).

For these reasons, the judgment below is reduced by $1,500 and is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed as modified.
#### Marvin I. BAKER, Petitioner, v. Susan S. BAKER, Respondent.

No. 46278.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 16, 1975.

Certiorari denied. 299 So.2d 138.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and OVERTON, JJ„ concur.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
          SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I , Keith Brackpool, certify that:

	1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
      Cadiz 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;

	3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
      other financial information included in this report,
      fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
      this report;

	4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
      responsible for establishing and maintaining
      disclosure 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 controls and procedures,
		or caused such disclosure controls and procedures
		to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
		that material information relating to the
		registrant, including its consolidated
		subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
		those entities, particularly during the period in
		which this report is being prepared;

      	b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
		disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
		this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
		of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of
		the end of the period covered by this report based
		on such evaluation; and

      	c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the
		registrant's internal control over financial
		reporting that occurred during the registrant's
		most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth
		fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
		that has materially affected, or is reasonable
		likely to materially affect, the registrant's
		internal control over financial reporting; and

	5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
      disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
      registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
      registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
      the equivalent functions):

      	a)  All significant deficiencies in the design or
		operation of internal controls which are reasonably
		likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability
		to record, process, summarize and report financial
		information; and

	      b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
		management or other employees who have a
		significant role in the registrant's internal
		control over financial reporting.

Dated: May 16, 2005

                              /s/ Keith Brackpool
					---------------------------------
                              Keith Brackpool
                              Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                              and Chief Financial Officer
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 

21, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00055-CV

IN RE COMMITMENT OF JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1268291Z

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

This is an attempted appeal from an order of civil commitment as a sexually 

violent predator signed November 10, 2022. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 

§ 841.146(b). Appellant filed an untimely motion for new trial on December 19, 

2022. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed January 23, 2023

The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is 

signed when appellant has not filed a timely post-judgment motion. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.1
2

Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion to extend time is 

necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal 

beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within 

the 15-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion to extend time. 

See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (1997) (construing the 

predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within the 

15-day period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.

We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain.
First Amendment to the Officer Employment Agreement - Thomas Yang



 Exhibit 10.10 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 OFFICER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This First Amendment to Officer Employment Agreement (“First Amendment”) is entered into effective January 26, 2009, by and between
Callaway Golf Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Thomas Yang (“Employee”). 
 A. The
Company and Employee are parties to that certain Officer Employment Agreement entered into as of May 1, 2008, (the “Agreement”). 
 B. The Company and Employee desire to amend the Agreement pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and other consideration, the value and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Company and Employee agree as follows: 
 1. Term. Section 1 of the Agreement is amended to extend the termination date of the Agreement to April 30, 2010. 
 2. Expenses and Benefits. 
 5(b) Paid Time Off. Employee acknowledges that, effective
February 2, 2009, or as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable, the Company’s Paid Time Off Program, as applied to officers, has been temporarily modified for 2009 to reduce the rate of Paid Time Off accrual for Employee by ten
(10) days on an annualized basis and prorated for the remainder of 2009. 
 5(d) Retirement. Employee acknowledges that the
Company’s 401(k) retirement investment plan has been amended for 2009 to eliminate the Company matching of 401(k) contributions for all employees, including officers. 
 Employee acknowledges that these temporary changes do not constitute a breach of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and that these changes shall
remain in effect during 2009 or until further written notice from the Company without the need for further amendment to the Agreement. 
 3.
But for the amendments contained herein, and any other written amendments properly executed by the parties, the Agreement shall otherwise remain unchanged. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment on the dates set forth below, to be effective as of the date first set forth above. 
  

							
	EMPLOYEE	 		 	COMPANY
			
		 		 	Callaway Golf Company, a Delaware corporation
				
	/s/ Thomas Yang	 		 	By: 	 	/s/ Chris Carroll
	Thomas Yang	 		 		 	 Chris Carroll
 Senior Vice President, Human Resources


				
	Dated:     February 2,
2009                                         
            	 		 		 	Dated:     February 3,
2009
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly
Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the
information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition of the Company and its results of operations as of and
for the periods covered therein.


/s/ William G. Smith, Jr.William
      G. Smith, Jr.Chairman,
      President, andChief
      Executive Officer





Date:
August 10, 2009








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version 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.