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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   5-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,607
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      750
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,225
<PP&E>                                         140,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 176,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,179
<BONDS>                                         87,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           13,897
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   176,591
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,485
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,814
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,076
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (27,966)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (27,966)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,966)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (7.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.02)
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00273

- CV

John M. DONOHUE

, Appellant

v.

BANDERA COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL : Daniel R. Butts, J.J. Martinez, Gerald Johnson, Rod Chalmers, D.J. Nowlin, Ernest Ferniz, Luis Moreno, Kim Manglberger, Chris Ahumada, Shane Merritt, Jose Hernandez, Matt Hernandez, Birdie Tyler; Boerne Police Department Personnel: Pablo Morales; San Antonio Police Department Personnel: Perla Dominguez and Kevin Nakata; Denice Martinez and Martha L. Donohue, Appellees

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV

- 15

- 0000271 Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because he qualifies as indigent under T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.

SIGNED January 8, 2020.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Joe Anthony Romero v. Kroger Texas L.P., Sedgwick Claims 

Management Services, and Phillips Akers Womac

Appellate case number: 01-12-00049-CV

Trial court case number: 10CV3689

Trial court: 212th District Court of Galveston County

Appellant, Joe Anthony Romero, filed a motion seeking to have his appeal decided in the 

first instance by the entire court sitting en banc. The motion is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

Acting individually

Date: October 25, 2013
# C_2022280EN.01001901.xml

| 21.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/19

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

20 July 2022

(2022/C 280/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0199 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 140,92 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4452 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85178 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4606 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9896 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 139,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,1323 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,493 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 399,50 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7820 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9396 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 17,9444 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4767 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3132 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,0062 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6308 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4204 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 337,61 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,3924 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8892 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5143 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 275,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5406 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,398 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,405 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5427 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,8967 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,5990 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0199

JPY

Japanese yen

140,92

DKK

Danish krone

7,4452

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85178

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4606

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9896

ISK

Iceland króna

139,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,1323

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,493

HUF

Hungarian forint

399,50

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7820

RON

Romanian leu

4,9396

TRY

Turkish lira

17,9444

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4767

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3132

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,0062

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6308

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4204

KRW

South Korean won

1 337,61

ZAR

South African rand

17,3924

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8892

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5143

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 275,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5406

PHP

Philippine peso

57,398

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

37,405

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5427

MXN

Mexican peso

20,8967

INR

Indian rupee

81,5990

---

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

---
#### § 263.107 Statement of fees and expenses.

The application shall be accompanied by a statement fully documenting the fees and expenses for which an award is sought. A separate itemized statement shall be submitted for each professional firm or individual whose services are covered by the application, showing the hours spent in work in connection with the proceeding by each individual, a description of the specific services performed, the rate at which each fee has been computed, any expenses for which reimbursement is sought, the total amount claimed, and the total amount paid or payable by the applicant or by any other person or entity for the services performed. The administrative law judge or the Board may require the applicant to provide vouchers, receipts, or other substantiation for any expenses claimed.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 24

- 12084
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
THE CREST AT BERKELEY LAKE, THE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

versus CECILIA WARD, and all other occupants,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia USCA11 Case: 24-12084 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 24

- 12084

D.C. Docket No. 1:24

- cv

- 02539

- SCJ

____________________ Before W ILSON , N EWSOM , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte , for lack of jurisdiction. Cecilia Ward, pro se , appeals directly from the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) that her case be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, the district court ha d not adopted the R&R or otherwise rendered it final when Ward appealed
, and a later adoption cannot cure the premature appeal

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co. , 693 F.2d 1061, 1066

- 67 (11th Cir. 1982) (explaining that magistrate judge orders issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)are not final and may not be appealed until rendered final by a district court); Perez

- Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct. , 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998) ( holding that a magistrate judge’s R&R thathas not been adopted by the district court is not final and immediately appealable). No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40

- 3 and all other applicable rules. USCA11 Case: 24-12084 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 312 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 312

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a dividends paid 
                               deduction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2003

Mr. Petri (for himself, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Franks of Arizona) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a dividends paid 
                               deduction.

    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 ``Dividend Payment Incentive Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. DIVIDENDS PAID DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Part VIII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special deductions for 
corporations) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
section:

``SEC. 250. DIVIDENDS PAID DEDUCTION.

    ``(a) In General.--In the case of a C corporation, there shall be 
allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the 
amount of dividends paid during such year.
    ``(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any dividend 
from--
            ``(1) a regulated investment company,
            ``(2) a real estate investment trust, or
            ``(3) a corporation which for the taxable year of the 
        corporation in which the distribution is made or the preceding 
        taxable year is a corporation exempt from tax under section 501 
        or 521.
    ``(c) Disallowance of Dividends Received Deduction.--No deduction 
shall be allowed under this chapter by reason of the receipt of any 
dividend for which a deduction is allowed under this section.''
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VIII of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end 
the following new item:

                              ``Sec. 250. Dividends paid deduction.''.
     (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2003.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40814 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CLAY ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No . C-96-CV-154-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Clay Robertson appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. Robertson argues that the district court erred in imposing a sentence adjustment for obstruction of justice pursuant to United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 3C1.1. This argument was not raised before the district court. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we AFFIRM. Based on the district court’s adoption of the Presentence Investigation Report, we find that no plain error was committed. See United States v. Vital ,No. 97-40814 -2- 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Lopez , 923 F.2d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2663

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study

and for other purposes.lands, as a unit of the National Park System,tle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, Virgin Isthe suitability and feasibility of designating Cas-

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2663

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating Castle Nugent

Farms located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as a unit

of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2663 EH

1 SECTION 1. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY REGARDING

2 CASTLE NUGENT FARMS.

3 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:

4 (1) Castle Nugent Farms, located on the south5 eastern shore of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, is

6 the largest parcel of privately-held land in the Virgin

7 Islands and has been an operating cattle ranch for

8 50 years.

9 (2) This land has the largest and healthiest

10 fringing coral reef anywhere in the Virgin Islands.

11 (3) It consists of Caribbean dry forest and

12 pasturelands with considerable cultural resources in13 cluding both pre-Columbian and post-European set14 tlement.

15 (4) Castle Nugent Farms contains a large his16 toric 17th century Danish estate house that sits on

17 over 4 miles of pristine Caribbean oceanfront prop18 erty.

19 (5) In addition to being an area for turtle nest20 ing and night heron nesting, it is the home for the

21 Senepol cattle breed, a unique breed of cattle that

22 was developed on St. Croix in the early 1900’s to

23 adapt to the island’s climate.

24 (b) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Interior shall carry

25 out a study regarding the suitability and feasibility of des-
3

•HR 2663 EH

1 ignating Castle Nugent Farms as a unit of the National

2 Park System.

3 (c) STUDY PROCESS AND COMPLETION.—Section

4 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall

5 apply to the conduct and completion of the study required

6 by this section.

Passed the House of Representatives September 21,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
quarterly consolidated financial statements of UNUM Corporation and Subsidiaries
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such contained in UNUM
Corporation's SEC Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         6,628,500
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      27,900
<MORTGAGE>                                   1,142,600
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  239,500
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               8,509,800
<CASH>                                          61,900
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           1,154,900
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         866,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,838,400
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              7,216,200
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        1,537,200
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                611,400
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,118,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,838,400
<PREMIUMS>                                     766,300
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            164,800
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (2,200)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 114,100
<BENEFITS>                                     578,600
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                   (23,400)<F1>
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                171,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                    56,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            115,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   115,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>This item contains the amounts of deferred and amortized policy acquisition
costs for the period presented.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
# C_2022153EN.01001301.xml

| 7.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/13

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 8 December 2021 in the case of Anna Bryndís Einarsdóttir v the Icelandic Treasury

(Case E-5/21)

(2022/C 153/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 8 December 2021 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 13 December 2021, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Anna Bryndís Einarsdóttir v the Icelandic Treasury on the following question:

Does Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, on the coordination of social security systems (cf. also Article 21(3) of the Regulation), oblige an EEA State, when calculating payments in connection with maternity/paternity leave, to calculate reference income on the basis of a person’s aggregate wages on the labour market across the entire European Economic Area? Does it infringe the aforementioned provision and the principles of the EEA Agreement (see, for example, Article 29 EEA) if only a person’s aggregate wages on the domestic labour market are taken into account?

---
# C_2010256EN.01000701.xml

| 23.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 December 2009

in Case E-5/09

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC)

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC)

2010/C 256/07

In Case E-5/09, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 7b of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time-limit prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 1 December 2009, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
§ 2.1 Authority, purpose, and scope. ( a ) *Authority.* A national bank may provide credit life insurance to loan customers pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 24 (Seventh).
( b ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to set forth the principles and standards that apply to a national bank's provision of credit life insurance and the limitations that apply to the receipt of income from those sales by certain individuals and entities associated with the bank.
( c ) *Scope.* This part applies to the provision of credit life insurance by any national bank employee, officer, director, or principal shareholder, and certain entities in which such persons own an interest of more than ten percent.
§ 19.8 Conflicts of interest. ( a ) *Conflict of interest in representation.* No person may appear as counsel for another person in an adjudicatory proceeding if it reasonably appears that such representation may be materially limited by that counsel's responsibilities to a third person or by the counsel's own interests. The ALJ may take corrective measures at any stage of a proceeding to cure a conflict of interest in representation, including the issuance of an order limiting the scope of representation or disqualifying an individual from appearing in a representative capacity for the duration of the proceeding.
( b ) *Certification and waiver.* If any person appearing as counsel represents two or more parties to an adjudicatory proceeding or also represents a non-party on a matter relevant to an issue in the proceeding, counsel must certify in writing at the time of filing the notice of appearance required by § 19.6(a): ( 1 ) That the counsel has personally and fully discussed the possibility of conflicts of interest with each such party and non-party; and
( 2 ) That each such party and non-party waives any right it might otherwise have had to assert any known conflicts of interest or to assert any non-material conflicts of interest during the course of the proceeding.