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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  259
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (70)
<INVENTORY>                                    994
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,183
<PP&E>                                       1,925
<DEPRECIATION>                                (318)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,992
<BONDS>                                        475
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,503
<COMMON>                                        33
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,213)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,790
<SALES>                                        288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               288
<CGS>                                          129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                70
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11
<EPS-BASIC>                                 .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .000


</TABLE>
#### Charles B. Evans, Respondent, *v.*The American Steel Foundry Co., Appellant.

Appeal from judgment entered upon a verdict and an order denying motion for a new trial.

Henry A. Rubino and Jay Noble Emley, for appellant.

Ivin, Wellman *&*Downer, for respondent.

Hascall, J.

It seems quite clear that this case comes within the principle so ably argued in the opinion in Baker v. Thomas, 12 Misc. Rep. 432; and, indeed many of the most important facts are so. similar that it would almost be possible to interchange them without disturbing the history of the actions. That case and others cited in its record, are controlling, and call for a reversal herein. See also Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 381.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs and disbursements to abide the event.

McCarthy, J., concurs.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.
#### Henry A. G. Wulfers, Respondent, *v.*Christian J. Wahrmann, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, first district, borough of Manhattan.

Fluegelman & Bach, for appellant.

Thomas J. Farrell, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The effect of the summary proceedings was to determine that on the first day of September, the defendant Wahrmann was a tenant of the landlord Henry Brunjes, and that the rent for the month of September, amounting to $200, was unpaid. r

Judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Soott and Dugbo, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
----

(2004/C 78 E/0393)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1541/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Outlawing the production of equipment for capital punishment and torture

The Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1) does not impose any restrictions on the use, production, marketing and sales within the internal market of the equipment and products concerned.

Given that capital punishment is banned under EU Treaties, why did the Commission not include proposals to outlaw the production of equipment that can be used for such purposes in the EU in this proposed regulation?

----

(1)  COM(2002)770.

----
§ 78.90 Suicide prevention services: Other services. ( a ) *General suicide prevention assistance.* A grantee may pay directly to a third party (and not to a participant), in an amount not to exceed $750 per participant during any 1-year period, beginning on the date that the grantee first submits a payment to a third party, the following types of expenses: ( i ) Expenses associated with gaining or keeping employment, such as uniforms, tools, certificates, and licenses.
( ii ) Expenses associated with lethal means safety and secure storage, such as gun locks and locked medication storage.
( b ) *Other.* Grantees providing or coordinating the provision of other suicide prevention services may provide or coordinate the provision of the other services as set forth in the NOFO or as approved by VA that are consistent with SSG Fox SPGP. Applicants may propose additional services in their suicide prevention services grant application, and grantees may propose additional services by submitting a written request to modify the suicide prevention services grant program in accordance with § 78.125. VA reserves the right to approve or disapprove other suicide prevention services to be provided or coordinate to be provided using funds authorized under SSG Fox SPGP.
# Official Journal C 386/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 386 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5820 November 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 386

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5820 November 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 386/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2015/C 386/2 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 386/1

Euro exchange rates

1

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2015/C 386/2

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 386/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7779 — Trafigura/Nyrstar) (
  1
  ) | 3 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 386/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7779 — Trafigura/Nyrstar) (
  1
  )

1

3

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
§ 8a.1 Definitions. ( a ) The term *housing unit* means a family dwelling or unit, together with the necessary land therefor, that has been or will be purchased, constructed, or remodeled with a grant to meet the needs of an eligible individual and of his or her family, and is or will be owned and occupied by the eligible individual as his or her home, or a family dwelling or unit, including the necessary land therefor, acquired by an eligible individual to be used as his or her residence after selling or otherwise disposing of title to the housing unit for which his or her grant was made.
( b ) The term *Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI)* means the mortgage protection life insurance authorized for individuals under 38 U.S.C. 2106.
( c ) The term *initial amount of insurance* means the amount of insurance selected by the insured, which may be less than the statutory maximum of $200,000 and less than the amount necessary to pay the mortgage indebtedness in full.
( d ) The term *mortgage loan* means any loan, lien, or other indebtedness incurred by an eligible individual to buy, build, remodel, or enlarge a housing unit, the payment of which loan, lien, or indebtedness is secured by a mortgage lien, or other equivalent security of record, on the housing unit in the usual legal form employed in the community in which the property is situated. The term also includes refinancing of such an indebtedness to avoid a default, to consolidate liens, to renew or extend the time for payment of the indebtedness, and in cases where the housing unit is being bought, built, remodeled, or enlarged by increasing the amount of such an indebtedness.
( e ) The term *owned* means the eligible individual has or will acquire an interest in the housing unit which is: ( 1 ) A fee simple estate, or
( 2 ) A leasehold estate, the unexpired term of which, including renewals at the option of the lessee, is not less than 50 years, or
( 3 ) An interest in a residential unit in a cooperative or a condominium type development which in the judgment of the Under Secretary for Benefits or the Executive Director, Loan Guaranty Service, provides a right of occupancy for a period of not less than 50 years: *Provided,* The title to such estate or interest is or shall be such as is acceptable to prudent lending institutions, informed buyers, title companies, and attorneys, generally, in the community.
( f ) The term *eligible individual* means a person who has been determined by the Secretary to be eligible for benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C. chapter 21.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2101, 2101A, 2106)
[37 FR 282, Jan. 8, 1972, as amended at 42 FR 43835, Aug. 31, 1977; 61 FR 29027, June 7, 1996; 82 FR 48631, Oct. 19, 2017; 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021]
41956.

#### RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. HUTCHESON.

Argued April 5, 1966

Decided April 12, 1966

Rehearing denied April 29, 1966

*Long, Weinberg & Ansley, Gregg Loomis,*for appellant.

*Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, Lynn A. Downey,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. Where a petition is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff and before refiling the plaintiff obtains a statement from the clerk of the court as to the costs due' and pays the amount of costs as shown on such statement, a plea in abatement will not lie to such refiled action because the clerk made a mistake in figuring such costs. See *McDonald v. Wimpy,*204 Ga. 617 (50 SE2d 347); *Whitsett v. Hester-Bowman Enterprises, Inc.,*94 Ga. App. 78 (93 SE2d 788).

2. In the present case the plaintiff paid the costs (which the clerk of the court said were due) accruing from the filing of the first petition which he voluntarily dismissed before the second petition was filed, and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s plea in abatement based upon the ground that all the costs arising from the filing of the first petition had not been paid.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2270 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2270

 To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend Federal Tort Claims 
   Act coverage to all federally qualified community health centers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2007

 Mr. Capuano (for himself, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Platts, Mr. 
 Gillmor, Mr. McNulty, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Shays, and Mr. 
    Renzi) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend Federal Tort Claims 
   Act coverage to all federally qualified community health centers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Every Health Center Act 
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

    Section 224(g)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
233(g)(4)) is amended by striking ``receiving Federal funds under 
section 330'' and inserting ``as described in section 1905(l)(2)(B) of 
the Social Security Act''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6289

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHAUNCEY ALEXANDER HOLLIS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-91-116, CA-98-305-1) Submitted: April 13, 2001 Decided: April 30, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chauncey Alexander Hollis, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Hollis states in his informal brief filed in this court that he seeks to appeal the order granting § 2241 relief. Although Hollis’ informal brief could be construed as a notice of appeal, Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992), the brief was filed well beyond the applicable appeal period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment and express no opinion as to its validity. 2 PER CURIAM: Chauncey Alexander Hollis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Hollis sought reconsideration of the court’s order granting relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994), and vacating his conviction for using or carrying a firearm in light of Bailey v. United States , 516 U.S. 137 (1995), * on the grounds that the court should have resentenced him on his conspiracy conviction and that counsel provided ineffective assistance at the original sentencing hearing.We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion denying Hollis’ Rule 60(b) motion and find no abuse of discretion. CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co. , 57 F.3d 395, 401 & n.2(4th Cir. 1995) (finding that where Rule 60(b) motion seeks reconsideration of legal issues, motion is not authorized by Rule 60(b),and rejection of motion is not an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of reconsideration on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hollis , Nos. CR-91-116; CA98-305-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in3 the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 49072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23160]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Communications Committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Communications Committee of the 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted via a telephone conference 
call. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, 
and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue 
Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, October 15, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Robb at 1-888-912-1227, or 
(414) 231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Communications Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel will be held Thursday, October 15, 2009, at 11 a.m. Central Time 
via a telephone conference call. You can submit written comments to the 
panel by faxing to (414) 231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel, Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-
2221, or you can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. Please 
contact Patricia Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or (414) 231-2360 for dial-in 
information.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: September 21, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-23160 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# L_2008352EN.01006201.xml

| 31.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 352/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 352/62

---

The European Community and Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago have notified the completion of the procedures necessary for provisional application of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part (1), in accordance with Article 243 of that Agreement. Consequently the Agreement will apply provisionally as from 29 December 2008. On this date, pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007, Protocol I of the Agreement concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ will supersede the provisions contained in Annex II to such Regulation. On the same date, pursuant to Article 5.5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 the temporary suspension procedures set out in paragraphs 2 to 4 of Article 5 shall be superseded by those contained in Article 20 of the Agreement.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 289, 30.10.2008, p. 3.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,877
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  110,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    120,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               256,601
<PP&E>                                         344,266
<DEPRECIATION>                                 141,046
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 585,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,617
<BONDS>                                        231,838
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,411
<OTHER-SE>                                     177,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   585,395
<SALES>                                        121,424
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,424
<CGS>                                           73,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,248
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,842
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,735
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,475
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,260
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,260
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
IN	THE	SUPREME	COURT	OF	THE	STATE	OF	MONTANA	

Cause	No.	DA	22-0241

IN	RE	THE	PARENTING	OF:	

S.D.,	and	B.D.,	

														Minor	Children,

JENNIFER	A	DUCHARME	n/k/a,	

BRICK

												Petitioner	and	Appellant,

vs.

GRANT	OF	EXTENSION

RICHARD	B.	DUCHARME,

Respondent	and	Appellee.

Pursuant	to	authority	granted	under	M.	R.	App.P.	26,	Appellee	is	given	an	

extension	of	time	until	October	14,	2022	to	prepare,	file,	and	serve	the	

Appellee’s	Brief.	

No	further	extensions	will	be granted.

DATED	this	_______________,	2022.	

__________________________________

Cc:

Jennifer	Brick,	Appellant	

Matthew	A.	Dodd,	Dillon	A.	Post,	Attorneys	for	Appellee	

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 13 2022

09/13/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0241
Opinion filed August 3, 2017

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-16-00215-CV

___________

D. CLAY HOLCOMB ET AL., Appellants

V.

ENDEAVOR ENERGY RESOURCES, L.P., Appellee

On Appeal from the 118th District Court

Martin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 6905

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

The parties have filed in this court a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. In 

the motion, the parties state that they have resolved their dispute and have agreed to 

dismiss all their claims. The parties request that we dismiss this appeal with 

prejudice and tax costs against the party incurring them. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1. 

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

August 3, 2017 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6653

JAMAL KEMO SAUNDERS, a/k/a Forever Al

- Mani Hamilton , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MATTHEW ROBERTS, Building Sergeant; HUGHES, Building Lieutenant , Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. ( 7:18

- cv
- 00045

- NKM

- JCH )

Submitted : December 17, 2020 Decided: February 2, 2021

Before KING, DIAZ, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jamal Kemo Saunders , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jamal Kemo Saunders appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Saunders v.
Roberts , No. 7:18

- cv
- 00045

- NKM

- JCH (W.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2020) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presen ted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED