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

<ARTICLE>      9
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         166,771
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             233
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                20,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    253,552
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         596,473
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           599,687
<LOANS>                                      1,446,978
<ALLOWANCE>                                     23,002
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,648,484
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,867,053
<SHORT-TERM>                                   365,467
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             38,561
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       377,403
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,648,484
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                141,178
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               54,042
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,311
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               197,531
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              50,205
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,118
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          130,413
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    6,650
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               6,121
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                102,361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 72,029
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      72,029
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.89
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,493
<LOANS-PAST>                                     9,945
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   180
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 15,790
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                21,529
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    7,737
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,560
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               23,002
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,192
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         16,810
        

</TABLE>
§ 424.506 National Provider Identifier (NPI) on all enrollment applications and claims. ( a ) *Definition. Eligible professional* means any of the professionals specified in section 1848(k)(3)(B) of the Act.
( b ) *Enrollment requirements.* ( 1 ) A provider or a supplier that is eligible for an NPI must do the following: ( i ) Report its NPI on its Medicare enrollment application.
( ii ) If the provider or supplier was in the Medicare program before obtaining an NPI and the provider's or the supplier's NPI is not in the provider's or supplier's Medicare enrollment record, the provider or supplier must update its Medicare enrollment record by submitting its NPI using either of the following: ( A ) The applicable paper CMS-855 form.
( B ) Internet-based PECOS.
( 2 ) A physician or eligible professional who has validly opted-out of the Medicare program is not required to submit a Medicare enrollment application for any reason, including to order or certify.
( c ) *Claims reporting requirements.* ( 1 ) A provider or supplier that is enrolled in Medicare and submits a paper or an electronic claim must include its NPI and the NPI(s) of any other provider(s) or supplier(s) identified on the claim.
( 2 ) A Medicare beneficiary who submits a claim for service to Medicare— ( i ) Must include the legal name of any provider or supplier who is required to be identified in that claim; and
( ii ) May, if known to the beneficiary, include the National Provider Identifier (NPI) of any provider or supplier who is required to be identified in that claim.
( 3 ) A Medicare contractor will reject a claim from a provider or a supplier if the required NPI(s) is not reported.
[75 FR 24448, May 5, 2010, as amended at 77 FR 25317, Apr. 27, 2012]
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1815 

To extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State 

of New Jersey. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Mr. LOBIONDO (for himself, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. GARRETT of New 

Jersey, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. HOLT, Mr. ANDREWS, and Mr. SIRES) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail 

in the State of New Jersey. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION. 

4 Section 6(c) of the Act titled ‘‘A bill to provide for 

5 the establishment of the Coastal Heritage Trail in the 

6 State of New Jersey, and for other purposes’’ (Public Law 

7 100–515; 16 U.S.C. 1244 note) is amended by striking 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 1815 IH

1 ‘‘shall terminate on September 30, 2007’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘shall terminate on September 30, 2011’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
#### RONALD M. TURECK ET AL. *v.*DAVID P. GEORGE ET AL.

*Roger J. Frechette,*in support of the petition.

Decided March 13, 1997

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 44 Conn. App. 154 (AC 14927), is denied.

BERDON and NORCOTT, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 18, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00337

- CR

IN RE Abelardo G. GONZALEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Luz Elen a D. Chapa , Justice

On September 10, 2015, relator filed a second motion for extension of time in which to

file a motion for rehearing. This court issued a per curiam opinion denying the mandamus

petition in this proceeding as moot on August 5, 2015. Rel ator’s first motion for extension of

time was granted, extending the deadline to file a motion for rehearing to September 14, 2015.

The panel has now considered relator’s second motion and the motion is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on September 18, 2015

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_______________________________ _

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2008CRR000657 D1, 2008CRR000662 D1, 2008CRR000665 D1, styled

The State of Texas v. Abelardo Gerardo Go nzalez , pending in the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas,

the Honorable Jose A. Lopez presiding.
§ 456.521 Conditions for granting variance requests. ( a ) Except as described under paragraph (b) of this section, the administrator may grant a variance for a specific remote facility if the agency submits concurrently— ( 1 ) A request for the variance that documents to his satisfaction that the facility is unable to meet the time requirements for which the variance is requested; and
( 2 ) A revised UR plan for the facility.
( b ) The Administrator will not grant a variance if the remote facility is operating under a UR plan waiver that the Secretary has granted or is considering under §§ 456.505 through 456.508.
### Geologic reconnaissance of the Yukon Flats district, Alaska

By: John R. Williams

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1111H

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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.
# C_2006048EN.01001602.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris by judgment of that court of 18 November 2005 in Thomson Multimedia Sales Europe SA v Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects

(Case C-447/05)

(2006/C 48/31)

Language of the case: French

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) of 18 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 16 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Thomson Multimedia Sales Europe SA and Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects on the following question:

‘Is Annex 11 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (1) invalid as being contrary to Article 24 of Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2) in that it has the result that a television receiver manufactured in Poland in the circumstances described in the proceedings is held to be of Korean origin?’

1

2

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ L 302, p. 1.

2

---
. . . . 

-...:..* 

.‘7>. 

.* ?. 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

TM.a 44iiele &II aamlatory upen ysu to the ztstont. 

the& *there shwld he a mbatatm oex@hyq - _ _
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Strategic Plan
- Directorates
- Initiatives
- Releases

HomeBureau of Diplomatic Technology…Key Topics – Bureau of Diplomatic Technology

# 											Key Topics									

Bureau of Diplomatic Technology

Data-Driven Decisions

U.S. Embassy Kabul’s Information Management team ensure Mission Afghanistan has the robust IT tools and services required to meet its foreign policy goals.

## Secure Solutions

DT IT and cybersecurity experts secure the Department’s communications, networking, and computing platforms in the U.S. and around the world.

## Anywhere, Anytime

DT communications channels connect our facilities, people, and systems across classified and unclassified environments.

## Critical Communications

The rapid and secure flow of vital knowledge and communications equips diplomats with the information to accomplish the foreign policy mission of the United States.

## Data-Driven Decisions

Information Management staff manage information and communications technologies that provide our customers the data they need to make sound decisions.

## Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The Bureau of Diplomatic Technology (DT) is the State Department’s Global IT bureau and a cutting-edge technology force in a new era of technology diplomacy. DT innovates AI technologies that emulate the behavior and performance of diplomats, by using machine learning, robotics, natural language processing, and vision recognition to advance traditional diplomatic activities, in new policy and mission settings. DT’s goal with AI is to both enable and create technologically advanced diplomacy.

Back to Top
§ 493.1255 Standard: Calibration and calibration verification procedures. Calibration and calibration verification procedures are required to substantiate the continued accuracy of the test system throughout the laboratory's reportable range of test results for the test system. Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, for each applicable test system the laboratory must do the following: ( a ) Perform and document calibration procedures— ( 1 ) Following the manufacturer's test system instructions, using calibration materials provided or specified, and with at least the frequency recommended by the manufacturer;
( 2 ) Using the criteria verified or established by the laboratory as specified in § 493.1253(b)(3)— ( i ) Using calibration materials appropriate for the test system and, if possible, traceable to a reference method or reference material of known value; and
( ii ) Including the number, type, and concentration of calibration materials, as well as acceptable limits for and the frequency of calibration; and
( 3 ) Whenever calibration verification fails to meet the laboratory's acceptable limits for calibration verification.
( b ) Perform and document calibration verification procedures— ( 1 ) Following the manufacturer's calibration verification instructions;
( 2 ) Using the criteria verified or established by the laboratory under § 493.1253(b)(3)— ( i ) Including the number, type, and concentration of the materials, as well as acceptable limits for calibration verification; and
( ii ) Including at least a minimal (or zero) value, a mid-point value, and a maximum value near the upper limit of the range to verify the laboratory's reportable range of test results for the test system; and
( 3 ) At least once every 6 months and whenever any of the following occur: ( i ) A complete change of reagents for a procedure is introduced, unless the laboratory can demonstrate that changing reagent lot numbers does not affect the range used to report patient test results, and control values are not adversely affected by reagent lot number changes.
( ii ) There is major preventive maintenance or replacement of critical parts that may influence test performance.
( iii ) Control materials reflect an unusual trend or shift, or are outside of the laboratory's acceptable limits, and other means of assessing and correcting unacceptable control values fail to identify and correct the problem.
( iv ) The laboratory's established schedule for verifying the reportable range for patient test results requires more frequent calibration verification.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 7, 2016

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 16

- 00042

- CR

MONIQUE ANN MCGOWAN , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12

- CR

- 2329

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On February 22, 2013, appellant entered a guilty plea to the offense of possession of a controlled substance. In accordance with a plea barga in agreement with the State, the trial court deferred adjudication of appellant’s guilt and placed her on two years’ deferred

- adjudication community supervision. On January 15, 2015, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant’s guilt on the grounds t hat she violated the terms of her community supervision. After a plea of not true to the State’s motion
, the trial court found at least one of the allegations true and2

adjudicated appellant’s guilt on December 17, 2015. The trial court assessed punishment at 180 days in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appella nt filed a notice of appeal on December 17, 2015

. On May 10, 2016, counsel for appellant filed a motion to withdraw appeal, alleging that appellant no longer wishe d to pursue this appeal. Counsel delivered a copy of the motion to appellant, but appellant failed to return a signed copy of the motion. Because appellant had not signed the motion, it did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). On June 2, 201 6, this court ordered a hearing
to determine , among other things, whether appellant desired to pursue this appeal.
On June 27, 2016 , the trial court conducted the hearing, and the record of the
heari ng was filed in this court on June 29, 2016

. At the hearing, counsel appeared without appellant. According to counsel, appellant refused to appear because she had an outstanding warrant, which was confirmed by the State. However, counsel confirmed that he had discussed the
issues with appellant and d etermined that appellant no longer wished to pursue her appeal. Following the hearing, the trial court recommended the appeal be
dismissed.
Appellant has not filed a compliant written motion to withdraw the appeal or a written motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). However, based upon the testimony of counsel at the hearing that appellant does not want to
continue h er appeal, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Wise

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 2, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-11477 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TERRY WAYNE KING, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-107-2-A

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Terry Wayne King, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for bank larceny. He argues that the district court erred in denying a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility and that his sentence is unconstitutional under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Reviewing the district court’s refusal to reduce King’s offense level under a highly deferential standard, we hold that the court did not err in denying King’s request for a reductionNo. 04-11477 -2- for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Washington , 340 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2003). Because King denied relevant conduct at the sentencing hearing, the district court’s decision was not “without foundation.” See id. King was sentenced pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme held unconstitutional in Booker . The Government concedes that the this issue was preserved through King’s objection in the district court based on Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and that it cannot show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we VACATE King’s sentence and REMAND to the district court for resentencing.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Nepali Constitution Day

# 									Nepali Constitution Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

September 18, 2021

On behalf of the people and the Government of the United States of America, I warmly congratulate you and the people of Nepal as you celebrate your Constitution Day on September 19.

This past year has seen our relationship grow as we have confronted shared challenges.  In particular, we worked together to combat the COVID‐19 pandemic and tackle the climate crisis.  We celebrate an enduring friendship that has strengthened through the bonds of people-to-people ties and our nearly 75 years of diplomatic relations.

I extend my best wishes to all Nepalis on this special occasion.

Tags

Bureau of South and Central Asian AffairsNepalOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION


I, Guido DiGregorio, certify that:


1.   I have  reviewed  this  report on Form 10-Q of  Communication  Intelligence
     Corporation;


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  officers  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  that  has  materially  affected,  or is
          reasonably  likely to materially  affect,  the  registrant's  internal
          control over financial reporting; and


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


     (a)  All significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation  of internal  control  over  financial  reporting  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.


Date: November 15, 2004


/s/ Guido DiGregorio
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer




                                      -30-