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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      15,173,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          99,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            14,900,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 39,523,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       7,349,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         7,178,000
<LOANS>                                    198,734,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,923,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             291,467,000
<DEPOSITS>                                 265,496,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,767,000
<LONG-TERM>                                  4,575,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,626,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              19,629,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,935,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              737,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               202,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,874,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,657,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,778,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,096,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  150,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (9,000)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,670,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                964,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     964,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   969,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.51
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,297,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    45,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,013,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  781,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   351,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,923,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,923,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 59/23 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 59 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6023 February 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 59

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6023 February 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2017/C 59/01 | Corrigendum to Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( OJ C 202, 7.6.2016 ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2017/C 59/01

Corrigendum to Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( OJ C 202, 7.6.2016 )

( OJ C 202, 7.6.2016 )

1

---

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

EN
---

|**Secondary Market Report** | **September 1998**
|--------------------------- | ------------------



---

### TABLE 5
Average Interest Rates on Conventional First Mortgages



---

`New Home Loans                  Existing Home Loans           
                        ------  ------  ------          ------  ------  ------
                        Sep'98  Aug'98  Jul'97          Sep'98  Aug'98  Jul'97
                        ------  ------  ------          ------  ------  ------
Northeast               6.89%   7.12%   7.65%           6.89%   7.12%   7.65%
Middle Atlantic         7.00%   7.16%   7.48%           7.00%   7.16%   7.48%
Southeast               6.88%   7.03%   7.68%           6.88%   7.03%   7.68%
North Central           6.91%   7.09%   7.77%           6.94%   7.09%   7.79%
Southwest               6.71%   7.10%   7.69%           6.94%   7.15%   7.69%
West                    6.92%   6.91%   7.65%           6.90%   6.90%   7.58%
                                                                
United States           6.86%   7.05%   7.67%           6.92%   7.06%   7.66%



                             United States Average                                      
                                        
                                   New                   Existing                       
                                 Home Loans             Home Loans                      
                                -----------             -----------
1984    High/Low                14.65/13.20             14.67/13.21
1985    High/Low                13.26/11.56             13.28/11.58
1986    High/Low                11.03/ 9.47             11.03/ 9.47
1987    High/Low                10.84/ 9.04             10.87/ 9.04
1988    High/Low                10.55/ 9.80             10.56/ 9.81
1989    High/Low                10.93/ 9.70             10.95/ 9.69
1990    High/Low                10.46/ 9.75             10.48/ 9.76
1991    High/Low                 9.66/ 8.67              9.65/ 8.66
1992    High/Low                 8.91/ 7.95              8.92/ 7.95
1993    High/Low                 8.19/ 6.89              8.19/ 6.89
1994    High/Low                 9.34/ 7.13              9.34/ 7.13
1995    High/Low                 9.32/ 7.46              9.33/ 7.46
1996    High/Low                 8.67/ 7.73              8.65/ 7.73
1997    High/Low                 8.25/ 7.38              8.25/ 7.39







Data as of: September 1, 1998                                       HQE: 9-25-98


HSG/FHA Home Page | Reports Menu | Email Us


Date Last Modified: 09/25/98`

_
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Ethiopia

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Ethiopia			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Ethiopia 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Ethiopia

During the review period, the government made its enacted budget available to the general public online.  The executive budget proposal, however, was not published, quarterly budget execution reports were not publicly available, and its end-of-year report was not published within a reasonable period of time.  Information on debt obligations was publicly available.  Budget documents lacked detail on state-owned enterprises, particularly those implementing major infrastructure projects.  Not all large state-owned enterprises had publicly available audited financial statements, however total, aggregated state-owned enterprise debt was disclosed.  Assessing the reliability of budget information is complicated by the lack of up to date quarterly and end-of-year execution reports.  The supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence.  It audited the government’s annual financial statements and published its reports within a reasonable period of time.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were specified in law and regulation.  The government generally appeared to follow applicable laws and regulations in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was not always publicly available. Ethiopia’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- publishing its executive budget proposal and end-of-year report within a reasonable period of time;
- providing more detail on allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises in the budget;
- making audit reports for significant, large state-owned enterprises publicly available; and
- making basic information about natural resource extraction awards publicly available.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Ethiopia 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentEthiopia

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2245

DORA L. ADKINS, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, 

Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00749-PTG-WEF) 

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 23, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dora L. Adkins, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2245 Doc: 30 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Dora L. Adkins appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of 

the magistrate judge, denying her requests for leave to file an emergency complaint and for 

leave to proceed on that complaint in forma pauperis, and dismissing her case. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Adkins’ motions

for leave to amend her informal opening brief and affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Adkins v. Fitness Int’l, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00749-PTG-WEF (E.D. Va. Nov. 

22, 2022). We deny Adkins’ motions to vacate and remand, to withdraw, to reverse and 

remand, for leave to reverse and remand, for leave to vacate and remand, to replace, for 

leave to replace, and for leave to amend her motions to vacate and remand. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2245 Doc: 30 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGEACT OF 1934,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Michael E.S. Frankel, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Trajectory Alpha Acquisition Corp.; 

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 tomake 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 materialrespects 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(s) 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) [Omitted]; 

(c) Evaluatedthe 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 onsuch evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred 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 reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation 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 arereasonably 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’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 
Date: March 30, 2022  By: /s/ Michael E.S. Frankel      **Michael E.S. Frankel**      **President and Chief Financial Officer**      **(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)****
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Docket ID: DoD-2009-OS-0136]

# AGENCY:

Defense Intelligence Agency, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice to delete systems of records.

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Intelligence Agency is deleting a system of records notice from its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

# DATES:

This proposed action will be effective without further notice on October 22, 2009 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

# ADDRESSES:

DIA Privacy Act Coordinator, Records Management Section, 200 McDill Blvd., Washington, DC 20340.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Theresa Lowery at (202) 231-1193.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Defense Intelligence Agency systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and are available from the address above.                

The Defense Intelligence Agency is proposing to delete a system of records notice from its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. This proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

Dated: September 15, 2009.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

## LDIA 0008

### SYSTEM NAME:

Vehicle Registration Information (June 5, 1993, 71 FR 32320).

### REASON:

The records contained in this system are maintained in F031 AF SP K Vehicle Administrative Records. DIA is a tenant organization on Bolling Air Force Base. DoD decals are maintained by the Chief of Security Police on Bolling and subsequently issued to agency for distribution.

[FR Doc. E9-22795 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
§ 75.116 Secretary determination. ( a ) Upon receipt of a risk analysis prepared under this subpart, the Secretary will consider the findings and other information contained in the risk analysis to determine whether the data breach caused a reasonable risk for the potential misuse of sensitive personal information. If the Secretary finds that such a reasonable risk does not exist, the Secretary will take no further action under this subpart. However, if the Secretary finds that such a reasonable risk exists, the Secretary will take responsive action as specified in this subpart based on the potential harms to individuals subject to a data breach.
( b ) In determining whether the data breach resulted in a reasonable risk for the potential misuse of the compromised sensitive personal information, the Secretary shall consider all factors that the Secretary, in his or her discretion, considers relevant to the decision, including: ( 1 ) The likelihood that the sensitive personal information will be or has been made accessible to and usable by unauthorized persons;
( 2 ) Known misuses, if any, of the same or similar sensitive personal information;
( 3 ) Any assessment of the potential harm to the affected individuals provided in the risk analysis;
( 4 ) Whether the credit protection services that VA may offer under 38 U.S.C. 5724 may assist record subjects in avoiding or mitigating the results of identity theft based on the VA sensitive personal information that had been compromised;
( 5 ) Whether private entities are required under Federal law to offer credit protection services to individuals if the same or similar data of the private entities had been similarly compromised; and
( 6 ) The recommendations, if any, concerning the offer of, or benefits to be derived from, credit protection services in this case that are in the risk analysis report.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 5724, 5727)
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 31, 

2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-11-00782-CV

BALLARD EXPLORATION COMPANY, INC. AND GORDY OIL COMPANY, 

Appellants

V.

MRA NORTHEAST, L.P. AND FRM/MRA HOLDINGS #1, LTD., Appellees

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-21836

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

This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 5, 2011. On January 23, 2012, 

appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. 

The motion is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher.
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased February 21, 2023 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### None Available

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c cales/

.
41730.

#### PATTERSON, by Guardian v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Jordan, Judge.

This is the second appearance of this workmen’s compensation case in this court. In *Patterson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,*110 Ga. App. 23 (137 SE2d 549), it was held that the record of the hearing before a deputy director contained evidence which was sufficient to authorize, though it did not demand, a finding that the deceased employee had acknowledged his parentage of the claimant, a posthumous illegitimate child, so as to qualify him as a dependent entitled to workmen’s compensation; and since it affirmatively appeared from the award denying compensation that the same was predicated upon an erroneous legal theory which precluded the consideration of this evidence, the judgment of affirmance by the superior court was reversed with direction *45that the case be remanded to the board for further consideration.

Argued January 11, 1966

Decided January 26, 1966.

*Robert Carpenter, A. Tate Conyers,*for appellant.

*Greene, Neely, Buckley •& DeRieux, Burt DeRieux, James A. Eichelberger, Johnson ■& Phillips, for*appellees.

In accordance with the direction of this court, the record was reconsidered and a new award was entered in which the deputy director after considering all the evidence, found as a matter of fact that there had been no acknowledgement of the claimant by the deceased employee, and again denied compensation. On appeal to the full board, the findings of fact of the deputy director were adopted and the award of the deputy was made the award of the full board. The appeal to this court is from the judgment of the superior court affirming the award of the full board. *Held:*

This court on the first appearance of this case held that the determination of the issue of acknowledgment was one for the board as the trior of facts, the evidence being sufficient to authorize but not demand a finding in favor of the claimant. The record now before this court discloses that the board, upon the case being remanded to it, properly considered all of the evidence on this issue in accordance with the previous direction of this court, and the subsequent award denying compensation is not erroneous for any reasons enumerated.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2408 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2408

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
Green Bay, Wisconsin, as the ``Milo C. Huempfner Department of Veterans 
                      Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC, 
              GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Green Bay, 
Wisconsin, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known 
and designated as the ``Milo C. Huempfner Department of Veterans 
Affairs Outpatient Clinic''. Any reference to such medical center in 
any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the 
United States shall be considered to be a reference to the Milo C. 
Huempfner Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 23, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2408

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
Green Bay, Wisconsin, as the ``Milo C. Huempfner Department of Veterans 
                      Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.
```