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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             440
<SECURITIES>                                     1,456
<RECEIVABLES>                                      438
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,025
<PP&E>                                           7,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,990
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        81,554
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,463
<SALES>                                          6,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,794
<CGS>                                            3,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,060
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,041
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  77
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,307)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,308)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,308)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00824

- CV

Karen D. GRIFFIN

, Appellant

v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY and Kenneth Piper,

Appellees

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- CI

- 08523

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appe llees, Union Pacific Railroad Company and Kenneth

Piper, recover their costs of this appeal from appellant, Karen D. Griffin.

SIGNED April 16 , 2014.

_____________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
HomeThe Secretary of StateRemarks & Releases...Release of U.S. Citizen Held Hostage in West Africa

# 									Release of U.S. Citizen Held Hostage in West Africa							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

March 20, 2023

We welcome the release of U.S. citizen Jeffery Woodke, who was held hostage in West Africa for more than six years.  I spoke with Jeffery’s family today and am pleased they will be reunited soon.  We are grateful for the extraordinary cooperation of the Government of Niger, as well as the sustained efforts of countless organizations and individuals worldwide that resulted in Mr. Woodke’s release.  I have no higher priority than bringing home U.S. nationals held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad, and we will continue to work relentlessly to secure their freedom around the world.

Tags

AfricaBureau of African AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateOffice of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs

Back to Top
### ^RECEIVED N 03-14-00530-CR GRAHAM JAY SONNENBERG IN THE COURT OF APPEALS VS. THIRD DISTRICT STATE OF TEXAS SITTING IN AUSTIN, TEXAS MOTION FOR PRO SE ACCESS TO THE APPELLATE RECORD



### This motion is brought by Graham Sonnenberg, Appellant in the above 

### styled and numbered cause. I have received from my court appointed counsel on appeal, Mr. Don Morehart, his Motion to Withdraw and his Anders Brief. 

### I do desire to review the appellate records from the trial court so that I may consider filing and pro se Appellant's Brief. I am indigent and I am not able to pay for a copy ofthe Appellate Records in this case. 

### THEREFORE, I hereby request that the Clerk ofthe Court ofAppeals provide me with a full and correct copy ofthe Appellate Records, or that the Court 

### ofAppeals Order the trial court to provide me full and correct copy ofthe Appellate Records in this case. 

### I am mailing this request within ten days ofreceiving notice ofmy right to request a copy ofthe Appellate Records in this matter. I am maiJing this request to Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk or the Third Court ofAppeals, Post Office Box 12547, Austin, Texas 78711. Respectfully Submitted, MAY 2 6 Z015 THIRD COURJOFAPPEALS/

LI OFAPPE/

Appellant: 

# tdcj#^/9^^92. Mailing Addressm
f..i. 4



# 3>j ^ Tv. 

# ^ <*>



## 0^ 

# ^T?P"

w n;
*<** ^» > -< > w'- 1-i n r o ?T' H ***Aw fr "3 «• s >- H H £
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00115-CR

KENNETH BELL,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. C34388-CR

ORDER

This appeal was abated to the trial court to determine the proper contents of the 

clerk’s record in this appeal, order the trial court clerk to submit a new clerk’s record, if 

necessary, and prepare oral or written findings. Those findings have been made and 

filed with this Court. No new clerk’s record was required to be submitted.

Accordingly, this appeal is reinstated. Appellant’s brief is due 30 days from the 

date of this Order.

PER CURIAM
Bell v. State Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal reinstated

Order issued and filed March 19, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22892]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Wednesday, October 21, 2009.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Enforcement Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-22892 Filed 9-18-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
INCLUDED IN ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      36,600,000
<SECURITIES>                                   471,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,381,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            55,721,000
<PP&E>                                      13,084,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,115,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,004,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,450,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,402,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,151,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,004,000
<SALES>                                     72,604,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            72,604,000
<CGS>                                       43,254,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               59,572,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,260,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,204,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         14,056,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                14,056,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.66
        

</TABLE>
*

The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, Chief United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan,

sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 04a0007n.06

Filed: October 6, 2004

Case No. 02-5885; 02-5888

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

KENTUCKY RESTAURANT CONCEPTS )

INC., ET AL., )

)

Plaintiffs-Appellants, )

) ON APPEAL FROM THE

v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT

) COURT FOR THE WESTERN

CITY OF LOUISVILLE, ET AL., ) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

)

__________________________________________)

BEFORE: BATCHELDER and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; and BELL, District Judge.*

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. At oral argument, counsel for Appellants

and Appellees conceded that the only issue properly before this court is the question of

damages–a question not overtly considered by the district court’s June 12, 2002 order. We agree. 

Accordingly, we deny the Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss and we REMAND this case for

consideration of damages in light of the district court’s prior order in favor of Appellants and

such other factors as the district court deems relevant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,424
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     30,263
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,112
<PP&E>                                          42,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,645
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         10
<COMMON>                                           151
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,937
<SALES>                                         18,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,585
<CGS>                                           13,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,519
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     34
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 34
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        34
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21

                            U.S.B. HOLDING CO., INC.
                                  SUBSIDIARIES

                                DECEMBER 31, 2002

                                Union State Bank
                               100 Dutch Hill Road
                           Orangeburg, New York 10962

        U.S.B. Financial Services, Inc. (subsidiary of Union State Bank)
                               100 Dutch Hill Road
                           Orangeburg, New York 10962

            Dutch Hill Realty Corp. (subsidiary of Union State Bank)
                               100 Dutch Hill Road
                           Orangeburg, New York 10962

       TPNZ Preferred Funding Corporation (subsidiary of Union State Bank)
                               100 Dutch Hill Road
                           Orangeburg, New York 10962

                            (Annual.Rpt\02)Exhibit.21

                           Union State Capital Trust I
                               100 Dutch Hill Road
                           Orangeburg, New York 10962

                         Union State Statutory Trust II
                               100 Dutch Hill Road
                           Orangeburg, New York 10962

                             USB Statutory Trust III
                               100 Dutch Hill Road
                           Orangeburg, New York 10962

                                  Ad Con, Inc.
                               100 Dutch Hill Road
                           Orangeburg, New York 10962
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

§ 2.197 Certificate of mailing. ( a ) The filing date of correspondence submitted under this section is the date of deposit with the USPS if the correspondence: ( 1 ) Is addressed as set out in § 2.190 and deposited with the USPS with sufficient postage as first-class mail; and
( 2 ) Includes a certificate of mailing for each piece of correspondence that: ( i ) Attests to the mailing and the address used;
( ii ) Includes the name of the document and the application serial number or USPTO reference number, if assigned, or registration number to which the document pertains;
( iii ) Is signed separately from any signature for the correspondence by a person who has a reasonable basis to expect that the correspondence would be mailed on the date indicated; and
( iv ) Sets forth the date of deposit with the USPS.
( b ) If correspondence is mailed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, but not received by the Office, the party who mailed such correspondence may file a petition to the Director under § 2.146(a)(2) to consider such correspondence filed in the Office on the date of deposit with the USPS. The petition must: ( 1 ) Be filed within two months after the date of mailing;
( 2 ) Include a copy of the previously mailed correspondence and certificate; and
( 3 ) Include a verified statement attesting to the facts of the original mailing.
( c ) If the certificate of mailing does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the filing date is the date the Office receives the submission.
[84 FR 37097, July 31, 2019]

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
EX-10.01  Amendment No. 6 to Incentive Stock Plan



 



EXHIBIT 10.01


AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE MARTIN
MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.

INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN



     This Amendment No. 6 to the Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Incentive
Stock Plan, as previously amended (the “Plan”) hereby makes the following amendments,
effective as of June 1, 2003.



	 	1.	 	Section 6.08 of the Plan is hereby deleted.
	 
	 	2.	 	All other terms and provisions of the Plan remain in full force
and effect.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.77 Amendments between notice of allowance and statement of use.

(a) The only amendments that may be entered in an application between the issuance of the notice of allowance and the submission of a statement of use are:

(1) The deletion of specified goods or services, or the entire description of the nature of the collective membership organization, from the identification;

(2) The deletion of a basis in a multiple-basis application; and

(3) A change of attorney or change of address.

(b) Other amendments may be entered during this period only with the express permission of the Director, after consideration on petition under § 2.146. If the Director determines that the amendment requires review by the examining attorney, the petition will be denied and the amendment may be resubmitted with the statement of use in order for the applicant to preserve its right to review.

[73 FR 67770, Nov. 17, 2008, as amended at 80 FR 2311, Jan. 16, 2015; 80 FR 33185, June 11, 2015]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
§ 498.74 Administrative Law Judge's decision. ( a ) *Timing, basis and content.* As soon as practical after the close of the hearing, the ALJ issues a written decision in the case. The decision is based on the evidence of record and contains separate numbered findings of fact and conclusions of law.
( b ) *Notice and effect.* A copy of the decision is mailed to the parties and is binding on them unless— ( 1 ) A party requests review by the Departmental Appeals Board within the time period specified in § 498.82, and the Board reviews the case;
( 2 ) The Departmental Appeals Board denies the request for review and the party seeks judicial review by filing an action in a United States District Court or, in the case of a civil money penalty, in a United States Court of Appeals;
( 3 ) The decision is revised by an ALJ or the Departmental Appeals Board; or
( 4 ) The decision is a recommended decision directed to the Board.
[52 FR 22446, June 12, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 32351, June 24, 1996]
****

This chart presents 1996 Missouri exports to the New Independent States of the former SovietUnion.  Data used to create the chart were collected by the **Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce**, With further analysis by the **University of Massachusetts,Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research** (MISER).  For more informationcall Pat Sweeney at **BISNIS**, at (202)482-4655x20.
'95 export data for Missouri
Return to USA Export Map
Return to BISNIS Home Page
#### Sandra K. PIPPIN v. James Falcon PIPPIN, Jr.

No. 51686.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 13, 1980.

Lewis, Booker & Lewis, Thomas L. Booker, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Self, Jordan & Jones, Robert D. Jones, Meridian, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lauderdale County; William Neville, Chancellor.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and COFER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.