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
consolidated balance sheets an consolidated statements of operations found on
pages 3 and 4 of the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          16,787
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,119
<INVENTORY>                                        370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,081
<PP&E>                                          11,745
<DEPRECIATION>                                     299
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,942
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,466
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        188
<COMMON>                                           188
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,942
<SALES>                                          3,885
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,081
<CGS>                                            1,272
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,316)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,408)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
October 26, 1998 

       Securities and Exchange Commission 
       450 Fifth Street, N.W. 
       Washington, D.C. 20549 

            Re:  Vitro Diagnostics, Inc. 
                    Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending January 31, 1998
                    SEC file no.  0-17378 

       Dear Sir or Madam:

       Transmitted herewith through the EDGAR system is Form 10-QSB for the 
quarter ended January 31, 1998 for Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.  Should you have 
any questions or comments concerning this matter please contact the 
undersigned at 303-794-2000.



       Sincerely, 



       Roger Hurst 
       President 


<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 23, 2009)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 48361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23084]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 48361]]

                Presidential Determination No. 2009-25 of September 7, 
                2009

                
Eligibility of the Maldives to Receive Defense 
                Articles and Defense Services Under the Foreign 
                Assistance Act of 1961, as Amended, and the Arms Export 
                Control Act, as Amended

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States, 
                including section 503(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
                of 1961, as amended, and section 3(a)(1) of the Arms 
                Export Control Act, as amended, I hereby find that the 
                furnishing of defense articles and defense services to 
                the Maldives will strengthen the security of the United 
                States and promote world peace.

                You are authorized and directed to transmit this 
                determination to the Congress and to arrange for its 
                publication in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, September 7, 2009.

[FR Doc. E9-23084
Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0647. RUSSELL RATHBURN et al. v. COMMUNITY BANKING

COMPANY OF FITZGERALD.

This case originated as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court.

Following an adverse ruling, defendants Russell Rathburn and Wanda Ann Rathburn

appealed to the superior court. The superior court also ruled in favor of the plaintiff,

and the Rathburns filed this direct appeal from the superior court’s order. We,

however, lack jurisdiction.

Because the superior court’s order disposed of a de novo appeal from a

magistrate court decision, the Rathburns were required to follow the discretionary

appeal procedure to obtain review of the superior court’s decision. See OCGA § 5-6-

35 (a) (1); English v. Delbridge, 216 Ga. App. 366, 367 (454 SE2d 175) (1995). Their

failure to follow this procedure deprives us of jurisdiction to consider this direct

appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 16, 2020

12/16/2020
# C_2022229EN.01000601.xml

| 14.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

13 June 2022

(2022/C 229/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0455 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 140,51 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4397 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85850 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6160 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0375 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,70 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,3222 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,724 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 399,30 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6373 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9459 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 18,0495 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4998 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3435 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2071 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6635 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4538 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 349,93 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,8070 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0434 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5215 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 376,17 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6195 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,720 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,425 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,2785 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,2102 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,6060 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0455

JPY

Japanese yen

140,51

DKK

Danish krone

7,4397

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85850

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6160

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0375

ISK

Iceland króna

138,70

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,3222

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,724

HUF

Hungarian forint

399,30

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6373

RON

Romanian leu

4,9459

TRY

Turkish lira

18,0495

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4998

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3435

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2071

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6635

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4538

KRW

South Korean won

1 349,93

ZAR

South African rand

16,8070

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0434

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5215

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 376,17

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6195

PHP

Philippine peso

55,720

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,425

BRL

Brazilian real

5,2785

MXN

Mexican peso

21,2102

INR

Indian rupee

81,6060

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

MILES JAGGER, 

 

Respondent Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Petitioner Below, 

Appellee.

§ 

§ No. 526, 2019 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ Court Below–Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ C.A. No. 17I-01117 

§ 

§ 

 

 Submitted: December 26, 2019 

 Decided: December 30, 2019 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 

it appears to the Court that: 

(1) On December 9, 2019, the appellant, Miles Jagger, filed a notice of 

appeal from a Superior Court Commissioner’s order, dated November 22, 2019, 

which mandated that Jagger receive involuntary outpatient treatment over his 

objection. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Jagger to show cause 

why this appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to 

consider an appeal directly from a Superior Court Commissioner’s order. 
2 

(2) Jagger filed a response to the notice to show cause on December 26, 

2019. In his response, Jagger argues he is entitled to relief from the Superior Court 

Commissioner’s order. He does not, however, address the jurisdictional issue raised 

in the notice to show cause. 

(3) The right of review of a Superior Court Commissioner’s order is to a 

judge of the Superior Court.1

 In the absence of intermediate review by a Superior 

Court judge, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from any action 

taken by a Commissioner.2

 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice

 

1

 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(4)(ii). 

2 Johnson v. State, 884 A.2d 475, 479 (Del. 2005).
§ 1240.122 Ongoing qualification. ( a ) *Changes to advanced systems.* An Enterprise must meet all the minimum requirements in § 1240.121 on an ongoing basis. An Enterprise must notify FHFA when the Enterprise makes any change to an advanced system that would result in a material change in the Enterprise's advanced approaches total risk-weighted asset amount for an exposure type or when the Enterprise makes any significant change to its modeling assumptions.
( b ) *Failure to comply with qualification requirements.* ( 1 ) If FHFA determines that an Enterprise fails to comply with the requirements in § 1240.121, FHFA will notify the Enterprise in writing of the Enterprise's failure to comply.
( 2 ) The Enterprise must establish and submit a plan satisfactory to FHFA to return to compliance with the qualification requirements.
( 3 ) In addition, if FHFA determines that the Enterprise's advanced approaches total risk-weighted assets are not commensurate with the Enterprise's credit, market, operational, or other risks, FHFA may require such an Enterprise to calculate its advanced approaches total risk-weighted assets with any modifications provided by FHFA.
See Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex Parte Duffy, 607 1

S.W.2d 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD–0777-08

GERALD WAYNE SMITH, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

MCLENNAN COUNTY

MEYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

In Hernandez, the majority overruled the “reasonably effective assistance of

counsel” standard from Ex Parte Duffy in favor of Strickland’s requirement that a

defendant show that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s deficient performance. What’s 1

more, the majority in Hernandez gave no reason for abandoning the Duffy standard, only

stating: “[W]e perceive no valid reason why Strickland cannot apply, or why a different
Smith dissent–Page 2

rule should apply, to noncapital sentencing proceedings.” Hernandez, 988 S.W.2d at 772. 

The obvious reason for applying a different rule to claims involving ineffective assistance

at punishment is that the Strickland standard is a barrier that cannot be met in this context. 

In the ten years since we switched from Duffy’s “reasonably effective assistance of

counsel” to the Strickland standard, we have not granted relief in a single case raising

ineffective assistance of counsel at punishment. Basically, as long as the sentence is

within the normative punishment range, the Court can say that the defendant has not

shown harm. Thus, even if a defendant receives substandard representation, it is

impossible for him to show that his sentence would be different if his counsel had not

been deficient. 

In Hernandez, I joined Judge Price’s dissent to the majority’s application of the

Strickland prejudice standard to noncapital sentencing proceedings. Now writing for the

majority, Judge Price perpetuates that unworkable standard. Therefore I respectfully

dissent.

Meyers, J.

Filed: June 17, 2009

Publish
§ 23.230 Transition plans. ( a ) *Submission of plans.* An institution to which § 23.225 applies and that is composed of more than one administratively separate unit may submit either a single transition plan applicable to all such units, or a separate transition plan applicable to each such unit.
( b ) *Content of plans.* In order to be approved by the Secretary of Education, a transition plan shall: ( 1 ) State the name, address, and Federal Interagency Committee on Education Code of the educational institution submitting such plan, the administratively separate units to which the plan is applicable, and the name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom questions concerning the plan may be addressed. The person who submits the plan shall be the chief administrator or president of the institution, or another individual legally authorized to bind the institution to all actions set forth in the plan.
( 2 ) State whether the educational institution or administratively separate unit admits students of both sexes as regular students and, if so, when it began to do so.
( 3 ) Identify and describe with respect to the educational institution or administratively separate unit any obstacles to admitting students without discrimination on the basis of sex.
( 4 ) Describe in detail the steps necessary to eliminate as soon as practicable each obstacle so identified and indicate the schedule for taking these steps and the individual directly responsible for their implementation.
( 5 ) Include estimates of the number of students, by sex, expected to apply for, be admitted to, and enter each class during the period covered by the plan.
( c ) *Nondiscrimination.* No policy or practice of a recipient to which § 23.225 applies shall result in treatment of applicants to or students of such recipient in violation of §§ 23.300 through 23.310 unless such treatment is necessitated by an obstacle identified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and a schedule for eliminating that obstacle has been provided as required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
( d ) *Effects of past exclusion.* To overcome the effects of past exclusion of students on the basis of sex, each educational institution to which § 23.225 applies shall include in its transition plan, and shall implement, specific steps designed to encourage individuals of the previously excluded sex to apply for admission to such institution. Such steps shall include instituting recruitment programs that emphasize the institution's commitment to enrolling students of the sex previously excluded.
APPROXIMATE SCALE 
APPROXIMATE SCALE 

0 3 6Uik 

'- NEZ PERCE TRAIL 

- RELATED TRAIL: 

1. Conllnenlal Dlvlde Nallonal Scenk Trall 

0 NATIONAL FOREST 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

STATE 

0 PRIVATE LAND 

- PRINCIPAL ROADS 
Tf'I'E B'EZ P'EIICE 

[BEE- 3lE-PO01 
HISTORIC SITE: 

41. Corinne-Bennack Stage Road 

42. Hole-in-lhe-Rock Stage Station (August 17. 1877) 

43. Dry Creek Stage Stallon 

44. Sam Glass' Grave 

45. Howard's Camp Callaway 

46. Bugler Brooks' Grave 

47. Camas Meadow Battle IAugust 20.1877) 

APPROXIMATE SCALE 

3 6 Mlb 

2-1 

" NEZ PERCE TRAIL STATE 

- RELATED TRAIL: NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

?. Conllmntal Dlrlda Nallonal Scenk Trall 0 PRIVATE LAND 

1 

NATIONAL FOREST - PRINCIPAL ROADS 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
**EXHIBIT 11.1**
Lamar Advertising Company and Subsidiaries Earnings Per Share Computation Information
Years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002               Year Ended  Year Ended  Year Ended   December 31,  December 31,  December 31,   2004  2003  2002 Net income (loss) applicable to common stock $12,790,000  $(80,360,000) $(36,693,000)             Weighted average common shares outstanding  104,041,030   102,686,780   101,089,215 Shares issuable upon exercise of stock options  530,453   —   — Incremental shares of convertible debt  —   —   —           Weighted average common shares and commonequivalents outstanding  104,571,483   102,686,780   101,089,215 Net income (loss) per common share basic anddiluted $0.12  $(0.78) $(0.36)
The above earnings per share (EPS) calculations are submitted in accordance with Statement ofFinancial Accounting Standards No. 128. An EPS calculation in accordance with Regulation S-K item601 (b) (11) is not shown above for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 because itproduces an antidilutive result. The following information is disclosed for purposes of calculatingantidilutive EPS for that period.               Year Ended  Year Ended  Year Ended   December 31,  December 31,  December 31,   2004  2003  2002 Net income (loss) applicable to common stock $12,790,000  $(80,360,000) $(36,693,000)Income impact of assumed conversions  5,042,031   7,718,327   9,207,188           Income (loss) available to common shareholdersplus assumed conversion $17,832,031  $(72,641,673) $(27,485,812)                       Weighted average common shares outstanding  104,041,030   102,686,780   101,089,215 Shares issuable upon exercise of stock options  530,453   360,578   546,242 Incremental shares from convertible debt  5,581,755   6,365,931   6,216,210           Weighted average common shares plus dilutivepotential common shares  110,153,238   109,413,289   107,851,667           Net income (loss) per common share $0.16  $(0.66) $(0.25)
Malacha (QF) 16 MW, Hydro Rocklin (QF) 12 MW, Biomass Chinese Station (QF) 9 MW, Biomass Fresno (QF) 12 MW, Biomass Poso (QF) 18 MW, Coal Jasmin (QF) 18 MW, Coal ACE (QF) 32 MW, Coal SEGS IV,V,VI (QF) 8 MW, Solar A/C Fuels Panther Creek (QF) 40 MW, Waste Coal Safe Harbor (EWG) 278 MW, Hydro Baltimore Plants 3,665 MW, Coal, Gas, Oil (see inset, below) Calvert Cliffs 853 MW, Nuclear Sunnyside (QF) 26 MW, Waste Coal West Valley 200 MW, 5 CT’s, Gas Handsome Lake 268 MW, 5 CTs, Gas R. E. Ginna 291 MW, Nuclear Nine Mile Point 777 MW, Nuclear

Quail Run (CC) 550 MW, Gas Hillabee 740 MW, 2x1 CC, Gas

Updated September 9, 2010 by the Constellation Energy Commercial Analysis Group Please contact Print & Digital Media Services at http://myconstellation/portal/site/pdms for copies of this map. Grande Prairie 93 MW, CT, Gas

Notch Cliff

Riverside Gould Street

Brandon Shores Perryman

C.P. Crane

Westport

Wagner Philadelphia Road BALTIMORE BALTIMORE COUNTY HARFORD COUNTY

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY BALTIMORE PLANTS 

# Constellation Energy Generation Assets Portfolio 8,950 MW in Operation • 70 MW Under Construction

Keystone (EWG)

357 MW, Coal 2 MW, Oil Colver (QF) 26 MW, Waste Coal Conemaugh (EWG) 180 MW, Coal 1 MW, Oil



### Eastern Plant Fuel Processing Plant Western Plant Under Construction Nuclear Plant Brandon Shores 1, 2 1,273 MW Coal Wagner 1-4, CT 440 MW Coal (2, 3) 126 MW Gas/Oil (1) 397 MW Oil (4) 13 MW Oil CT C.P. Crane 1, 2, CT 385 MW Coal (1, 2) 14 MW Oil CT Riverside 4, 6, 7, 8 74 MW Gas Steam (4) 115 MW Gas/Oil CT (6) 39 MW Oil CT (7, 8) Westport 5 116 MW Gas CT Gould Street 97 MW Gas Philadelphia Road 1-4 61 MW Oil CT Notch Cliff 1-8 104 MW Gas CT Perryman 1-4, 51 199 MW Oil CT (1-4) 148 MW Gas/Oil CT (51) Criterion 70 MW, Wind

Colorado Bend (CC) 550 MW, Gas
# Official Journal C 116/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.116.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 116 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5623 April 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.116.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 116

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5623 April 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2013/C 116/01 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2013/C 116/01

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 116/02 | State aid — Portugal — State aid No SA.35062 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Breach of a dividend ban by Caixa Geral de Depósitos, S.A. — Misuse of rescue aid — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU (1) | 13 |
| 2013/C 116/03 | State aid — Netherlands — SA.33584 (2013/C) (ex 2011/NN) — Netherlands aid to certain professional Dutch football clubs in 2008-11 — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) | 19 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2013/C 116/02

State aid — Portugal — State aid No SA.35062 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Breach of a dividend ban by Caixa Geral de Depósitos, S.A. — Misuse of rescue aid — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU (1)

13

2013/C 116/03

State aid — Netherlands — SA.33584 (2013/C) (ex 2011/NN) — Netherlands aid to certain professional Dutch football clubs in 2008-11 — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1)

19

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN