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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          32,686
<SECURITIES>                                 1,058,125
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,668
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,768
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,536,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          358,193
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,536,120
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,756
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,155
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,399)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,399)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 266/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 266 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5922 July 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 266

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5922 July 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2016/C 266/01 ECB/2016/20 | Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 14 July 2016 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Eesti Pank (ECB/2016/20) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RECOMMENDATIONS

European Central Bank

2016/C 266/01 ECB/2016/20

Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 14 July 2016 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Eesti Pank (ECB/2016/20)

1

---

| | II   Information |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 266/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8076 — Warburg Pincus/Wendel/JV) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2016/C 266/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8051 — CVC/Tipico Group) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 266/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8076 — Warburg Pincus/Wendel/JV) (
  1
  )

1

2

2016/C 266/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8051 — CVC/Tipico Group) (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 266/04 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| | European Banking Authority |
| 2016/C 266/05 | Decision of the European Banking Authority confirming that the unsolicited credit assessments of certain ECAIs do not differ in quality from their solicited credit assessments | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 266/04

Euro exchange rates

3

European Banking Authority

2016/C 266/05

Decision of the European Banking Authority confirming that the unsolicited credit assessments of certain ECAIs do not differ in quality from their solicited credit assessments

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0093

_____________________________
E DDIE J AMES M URPHY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Leandra G. Johnson , Judge.

June 20, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the le gal process by his repeated pro se filings attacking his judgment and s entence, the Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why he should no t be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (requiring that courts “first provide notice and an opportun ity to respond before preventing [a] litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence”). A ppellant’s response to the show cause order does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.

Because Appellant’s co ntinu ed and repeated attacks on his judgment and s entence have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold th at he is barred from future pro se filings in this Court concerning Columbia County Circuit Court case number 1997

- 715

-2 CF . The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing with The Florida Bar. Appellant is warned that any filings that violate the terms of this opinion may result in a referral to the appropri ate institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410.

R OWE , R AY , and M AKAR , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________ Eddie James Murphy , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes

, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### § 456.245 Number of studies required to be performed.

The mental hospital must, at least, have one study in progress at any time and complete one study each calendar year.
§ 21.58 Redetermination of employment handicap and serious employment handicap. ( a ) *Prior to induction into a program.* A determination as to employment handicap, serious employment handicap, or eligibility for a program of employment services will not be changed except for: ( 1 ) Unmistakable error in fact or law; or
( 2 ) New and material evidence which justifies a change.
( b ) *After induction into a program.* ( 1 ) The Department of Veterans Affairs will not redetermine a finding of employment handicap, serious employment handicap, or eligibility for a program of employment services subsequent to the veteran's induction into a program because of a reduction in his or her disability rating, including a reduction to 0 percent:
( 2 ) The Department of Veterans Affairs may consider whether a finding of employment handicap should be changed to serious employment handicap when there is an increase in the degree of service-connected disability, or other significant change in the veteran's situation;
( 3 ) A redetermination of employment handicap, serious employment handicap, or eligibility for a program of employment services will be made when there is a clear and unmistakable error of fact or law. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3102, 3106)
( c ) *Following rehabilitation or discontinuance.* A veteran's eligibility and entitlement to assistance must be redetermined in any case in which: ( 1 ) The veteran is determined to be rehabilitated to the point of employability under the provisions of § 21.190;
( 2 ) The veteran is determined to meet the requirements for rehabilitation under the provisions of § 21.196; or
( 3 ) The veteran's program is discontinued under the provisions of § 21.198, except as described in § 21.198(c)(3).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3102, 3111)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          14,840
<SECURITIES>                                    11,156
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (486)
<INVENTORY>                                     49,959
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,835
<PP&E>                                          10,780
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,706)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,105
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           206
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,697
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,080
<SALES>                                         42,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,753
<CGS>                                           25,517
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    83
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (269)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,760
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,242
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,518
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,518
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
<FN>
<F1>Net of $273 of interest income and $4 of interest expense.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellant,

v.

DAVID BARRON,

 Appellee. 

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-12-00245-CR

Appeal from

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20120D01101)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court to determine whether it has jurisdiction of a notice of 

cross-appeal filed by appellee, David Barron. Finding that we do not have jurisdiction, we 

dismiss the cross-appeal.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

A jury found Barron guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and assessed his 

punishment at imprisonment for twelve years. The trial court imposed sentence on April 24, 

2012. Barron timely filed a motion for new trial and the trial court denied that motion by written 

order signed on May 31, 2012. Barron filed notice of appeal on June 1, 2012. That appeal is 

docketed as David Barron v. The State of Texas, 08-12-00184-CR. On July 6, 2012, the trial 

court signed an order granting Barron’s motion for new trial and the State filed notice of appeal. 

Barron filed notice of cross-appeal on August 13, 2012. The Clerk of the Court subsequently 

sent Barron a notice that the Court did not have jurisdiction of the cross-appeal and would 

dismiss it absent a response showing grounds it should be continued. Barron has not filed any 

response to that letter.

JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER CROSS-APPEAL
- 2 -

The State has appealed the trial court’s order granting a new trial pursuant to Article 

44.01(a)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 44.01(a)(3)

(West Supp. 2012). We are unaware of any statutes or rules which provide Barron with the right 

to appeal an order granting him a new trial. Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction to 

consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. 

Workman v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 

906, 907 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). Barron has already preserved his right to appeal 

the judgment of conviction by timely filing a separate notice of appeal and that appeal has been 

abated pending resolution of this appeal. If the State is unsuccessful in this appeal, we will 

reinstate cause number 08-12-00184-CR and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction because there will 

be no final judgment of conviction to be appealed. If the State is successful, however, and the 

trial court’s order granting the motion for new trial is reversed, we will reinstate Barron’s appeal

in cause number 08-12-00184-CR and it will proceed. Accordingly, we conclude that a crossappeal in this case is unnecessary to preserve Barron’s right to appeal the judgment of 

conviction. In the absence of any statute or authority providing Barron a right to file a crossappeal, we conclude that the attempted cross-appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

The State’s appeal will proceed.

November 14, 2012 _______________________________________________

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
§ 20.1406 Rule 1406. Effect of revision; discontinuance or reduction of benefits. ( a ) *General.* A decision of the Board that revises a prior Board decision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error has the same effect as if the decision had been made on the date of the prior decision.
( b ) *Discontinuance or reduction of benefits.* Revision of a prior Board decision under this subpart that results in the discontinuance or reduction of benefits is subject to laws and regulations governing the reduction or discontinuance of benefits by reason of erroneous award based solely on administrative error or errors in judgment.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7111(b))
EXHIBIT 32.2
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2009 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2009
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Thor Industries, Inc.
 DATE: November 30, 2009
    /s/ Christian G. FarmanChristian G. FarmanSenior Vice President, Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.451 Special apportionments.

Without regard to any other provision regarding apportionment where hardship is shown to exist, pension, compensation, emergency officers' retirement pay, or dependency and indemnity compensation may be specially apportioned between the veteran and his or her dependents or the surviving spouse and children on the basis of the facts in the individual case as long as it does not cause undue hardship to the other persons in interest, except as to those cases covered by § 3.458(b) and (c). In determining the basis for special apportionment, consideration will be given such factors as: Amount of Department of Veterans Affairs benefits payable; other resources and income of the veteran and those dependents in whose behalf apportionment is claimed; and special needs of the veteran, his or her dependents, and the apportionment claimants. The amount apportioned should generally be consistent with the total number of dependents involved. Ordinarily, apportionment of more than 50 percent of the veteran's benefits would constitute undue hardship on him or her while apportionment of less than 20 percent of his or her benefits would not provide a reasonable amount for any apportionee.

[44 FR 45940, Aug. 6, 1979]
EXHIBIT
35.1



SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



Re:
Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, in its capacity as Servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Amended and Restated
Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2009, among Daimler Trust, as Titling Trust, Daimler Title Co., as Collateral Agent,
and Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, as Lender and as Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”), and under the
2021-A Servicing Supplement, dated as of January 1, 2021, among the same parties (the “Servicing Supplement”) for
the period from January 27, 2021, to December 31, 2021 (the “Reporting Period”)



I,
Brian T. Stevens, certify that:



| | (a) | A
                                         review of the Servicer’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance
                                         under the Servicing Agreement and the Servicing Supplement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To
                                         the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its
                                         obligations under the Servicing Agreement and the Servicing Supplement in all material
                                         respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 24, 2022





| | /s/
    Brian T. Stevens                
| | ----------------------------------------
| | Name: Brian T. Stevens                  
| | Title: Vice President
    and Controller
#### § 18b.35 Motions.

Motions and petitions shall state the relief sought, the authority relied upon, and the facts alleged. If made before or after the hearing, these matters shall be in writing. If made at the hearing, they may be stated orally; but the presiding officer may require that they be reduced to writing and filed and served on all parties in the same manner as a formal motion. Motions, answers, and replies shall be addressed to the presiding officer, if the case is pending before the officer. A repetitious motion will not be entertained.

[35 FR 10760, July 2, 1970, as amended at 51 FR 10386, Mar. 26, 1986]
#### § 381.1 General.

This part establishes terms and rates of royalty payments for certain activities using published nondramatic musical works and published pictorial, graphic and sculptural works during a period beginning on January 1, 2023, and ending on December 31, 2027. Upon compliance with 17 U.S.C. 118, and the terms and rates of this part, a public broadcasting entity may engage in the activities with respect to such works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 118(c).

[72 FR 67647, Nov. 30, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 71105, Nov. 29, 2012; 83 FR 2740, Jan. 19, 2018; 88 FR 41828, June 28, 2023]
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.378 Changes from activity in pulmonary tuberculosis pension cases.

A permanent and total disability rating in effect during hospitalization will not be discontinued before hospital discharge on the basis of a change in classification from active. At hospital discharge, the permanent and total rating will be discontinued unless (a) the medical evidence does not support a finding of complete arrest (§ 3.375), or (b) where complete arrest is shown but the medical authorities recommend that employment not be resumed or be resumed only for short hours (not more than 4 hours a day for a 5-day week). If either of the two aforementioned conditions is met, discontinuance will be deferred pending examination in 6 months. Although complete arrest may be established upon that examination, the permanent and total rating may be extended for a further period of 6 months provided the veteran's employment is limited to short hours as recommended by the medical authorities (not more than 4 hours a day for a 5-day week). Similar extensions may be granted under the same conditions at the end of 12 and 18 months periods. At the expiration of 24 months after hospitalization, the case will be considered under § 3.321(b) if continued short hours of employment is recommended or if other evidence warrants submission.

[43 FR 45348, Oct. 2, 1978]
#### § 1.562 Other rights and services.

Nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.

(Authority:Sections 1.550 to 1.562 issued under 72 Stat. 1114; 38 U.S.C. 501)

[76 FR 51895, Aug. 19, 2011]
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4251 Loans to finance the purchase of manufactured homes and the cost of necessary site preparation. ( a ) A loan to finance the purchase of a manufactured home may include funds (or be augmented by a separate loan) to pay all or a part of the cost of the necessary site preparation of a lot on which to place the manufactured home and the loan shall be eligible for guaranty: Provided, that: ( 1 ) The veteran has, or incident to the transaction will acquire, a title to the lot that conforms to § 36.4253(a).
( 2 ) The loan is secured as required by § 36.4253(d).
( 3 ) The lot is determined by the Secretary to be an acceptable manufactured homesite pursuant to § 36.4208,
( 4 ) The cost of the necessary site preparation is determined by the Secretary to be reasonable.
( 5 ) The amount of the loan to pay for necessary site preparation does not exceed the cost thereof and also does not exceed the reasonable value of the developed lot as determined by the Secretary, and
( 6 ) The loan conforms otherwise to the requirements of the § 36.4200 series.
( b ) Notwithstanding that the veteran-borrower's obligation for such site preparation be evidenced and secured separately from the obligation for purchase of the manufactured home, the obligations together shall constitute one loan for the purposes of the § 36.4200 series, including computation of the Secretary's guaranty liability.
( c ) The cost of site preparation which will not be paid from the proceeds of the loan must be paid by the veteran in cash from the veteran's own resources.
[36 FR 3368, Feb. 23, 1971, as amended at 40 FR 13215, Mar. 25, 1975; 48 FR 40230, Sept. 6, 1983]