alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
    
<ARTICLE>              5
<CIK>                  0000794927
<NAME>                 CANTERBURY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC. 
<MULTIPLIER>           1
          
<S>                         <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>              JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<CASH>                        1,077,971
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                 5,763,295
<ALLOWANCES>                  1,892,000
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              7,942,405
<PP&E>                        6,437,413
<DEPRECIATION>                3,818,218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               28,302,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         4,481,860
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                     766,000
<COMMON>                         16,251
<OTHER-SE>                   18,370,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 28,302,562
<SALES>                      11,164,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             11,164,490
<CGS>                         4,997,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 4,523,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               (532,627)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                207,199
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              309,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>               1,659,081
<INCOME-TAX>                    630,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           1,029,081
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                  1,029,081
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .07
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 195 (Friday, October 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52213-52214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24437]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers


Board on Coastal Engineering Research

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

[[Page 52214]]


ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
committee meeting:
    Name of Committee: Board on Coastal Engineering Research.
    Date of Meeting: November 12-13, 2009.
    Place: Rooms 3M60 and 3M70, GAO Building, Headquarters, U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (November 12, 2009).
    8 a.m. to 12 p.m. (November 13, 2009).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquiries and notice of intent to 
attend the meeting may be addressed to COL Gary E. Johnston, Executive 
Secretary, Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways 
Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Board provides broad policy guidance and review of plans and 
fund requirements for the conduct of research and development of 
research projects in consonance with the needs of the coastal 
engineering field and the objectives of the Chief of Engineers.
    Proposed Agenda: This meeting is devoted to an Executive Session of 
the Board to review in detail actions underway on three Board 
initiatives or concerns, which include: (1) To review the Data 
Collection and Dissemination Framework being developed jointly with the 
National Ocean Service; (2) to review the proposed PgMP for the 
Sustainable Approach for Coastal and Estuarine Systems (SUSTAIN); and 
(3) to review the interim Report on National Shoreline Management Study 
and the plans for completing the study.
    The meeting is open to the public, but since the meeting will be 
held in a government facility and seating capacity of the meeting room 
is limited, advance notice of intent to attend is required. A list of 
attendees will be provided to security.

Gary E. Johnston,
Colonel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24437 Filed 10-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This scehdule contains summary financial information  extracted from SEC
Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial 
statements.
</LEGEND>
                   
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollar
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         9,287
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,160
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,508
<PP&E>                                         46,839
<DEPRECIATION>                                 29,367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 42,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,340
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       72
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   42,312
<SALES>                                        10,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,864
<CGS>                                          9,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,260
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               51
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                68
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   68
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .01
        


</TABLE>
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 26, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-30817

Summary Calendar

 

JANET PIPPINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TANGIPAHOA PARISH COUNCIL; GORDON BURGESS,

Individually and in His Official Capacity as Duly Elected

Tangipahoa Parish President,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Louisiana

(USDC No. 2:03-CV-1334)

_________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment is affirmed for the following reasons:

1. We essentially agree with the analysis of the district court as set forth in the
2

magistrate judge’s Order and Reasons.

2. For the Louisiana whistleblower statute, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:967 (West

1998), to apply, the employer must have committed a violation of state law. Puig v.

Greater New Orleans Expressway Comm’n, 772 So.2d 842, 845 (La. Ct. App. 2000). 

The policy decision of the parish to limit animal cruelty investigations by the animal

control department to pets, and to leave livestock cruelty investigations to other law

enforcement officials with concurrent jurisdiction over such investigations, was not

illegal or a violation of state law.

3. Summary judgment was also warranted on the Title VII sex discrimination

claim. The district court did not misunderstand or misapply the law governing such

claims. Assuming that appellant Pippins established a prima facie case, the defendants

offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination. Summary judgment

was therefore appropriate if the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of pretext

under the summary judgment standard. See Price v. Federal Express Corp., 283 F.3d

715, 720 (5th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, a showing that the defendant’s proffered

justifications for the employment decision were rejected in part does not necessarily

preclude summary judgment. Id. “Once a Title VII claim reaches the pretext stage, the

only question on summary judgment is whether there is a conflict in substantial evidence

to create a jury question regarding discrimination.” Haynes v. Pennzoil Co., 207 F.3d

296, 300 (5th Cir. 2000). We agree with the district court that Pippins did not present

sufficient evidence of pretext for a rational jury to decide this case in her favor by finding
3

that her termination was due to her gender. The evidence of sexual discriminations was

limited to the prima facie proof that a man replaced her, while the evidence that she was

fired for other reasons, including her failure to keep the department within its budget and

the failure to follow the parish policy regarding livestock, was relatively so substantial

that a rational jury could not find on this record that Pippins was terminated for

discriminatory reasons.

AFFIRMED.
BF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. OP 2 1 - 0063 MICHAEL JOHN STALEY,

Petitioner, v. COMMANDER DAN O'FALLON, Warden, Cascade County Regional Prison,

Respondent. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Respondent ’s motion for a 3 0 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent is granted an extension of time to and including April 13 , 2021 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 12 2021

03/12/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0063
# C_2020132EN.01000801.xml

| 23.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/8

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 132/06)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision: | 10 February 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No: | 84717 |
| Decision No: | 006/20/COL |
| EFTA State: | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary): | Temporary prolongation of production grant scheme for news and current affairs media |
| Legal basis: | Regulation No 333 of 25 March 2014 on production grants for news and current affairs media |
| Type of measure: | Scheme |
| Objective: | Media diversity and plurality |
| Form of aid: | Grant |
| Budget: | NOK 358 million |
| Duration | 31 December 2020 |
| Economic sectors: | Media |
| Name and address of the granting authority: | The Norwegian Media Authority
  Nygata 4
  Fredrikstad
  NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision:

10 February 2020

Case No:

84717

Decision No:

006/20/COL

EFTA State:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary):

Temporary prolongation of production grant scheme for news and current affairs media

Legal basis:

Regulation No 333 of 25 March 2014 on production grants for news and current affairs media

Type of measure:

Scheme

Objective:

Media diversity and plurality

Form of aid:

Grant

Budget:

NOK 358 million

Duration

31 December 2020

Economic sectors:

Media

Name and address of the granting authority:

The Norwegian Media Authority

Nygata 4

Fredrikstad

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements of
Mariner  Health  Group,  Inc. on Form S-8 (Nos.  33-67628,  33-77762,  33-78880,
33-99642,  and  333-2780)  and Form S-3 (File No.  333-3314) of our report dated
February 7, 1997 on our audits of the  financial  statements  of Mariner  Health
Group,  Inc. and  Subsidiaries  as of December 31, 1995 and 1996 and for each of
the three years in the period ended December 31, 1996,  which report is included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K


Boston, Massachusetts                             /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
April 28, 1997
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1787

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Nebraska. Timothy S. Degarmo, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 13, 2009 Filed: March 12, 2009

___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Timothy S. Degarmo was tried and convi cted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to 300 months imprisonment. His direct appeal was denied in United States v. Degarmo , 450 F.3d 360 (8th Cir. 2006). Thereafter, Degarmo filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Among other claims, Degarmo argued he was the victim of a vindictive prosecution and appe llate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the1 The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2- issue on direct appeal. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's 1 well-reasoned order. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Editorial Note on Part 220
Editorial Note: A copy of each form referred to in this part is filed as a part of the original document. Copies are available upon request to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any Federal Reserve Bank.

§ 220.12 Supplement: margin requirements. The required margin for each security position held in a margin account shall be as follows: ( a ) Margin equity security, except for an exempted security, money market mutual fund or exempted securities mutual fund, warrant on a securities index or foreign currency or a long position in an option: 50 percent of the current market value of the security or the percentage set by the regulatory authority where the trade occurs, whichever is greater.
( b ) Exempted security, non-equity security, money market mutual fund or exempted securities mutual fund: The margin required by the creditor in good faith or the percentage set by the regulatory authority where the trade occurs, whichever is greater.
( c ) Short sale of a nonexempted security, except for a non-equity security: ( 1 ) 150 percent of the current market value of the security; or
( 2 ) 100 percent of the current market value if a security exchangeable or convertible within 90 calendar days without restriction other than the payment of money into the security sold short is held in the account, provided that any long call to be used as margin in connection with a short sale of the underlying security is an American-style option issued by a registered clearing corporation and listed or traded on a registered national securities exchange with an exercise price that does not exceed the price at which the underlying security was sold short.
( d ) Short sale of an exempted security or non-equity security: 100 percent of the current market value of the security plus the margin required by the creditor in good faith.
( e ) Nonmargin, nonexempted equity security: 100 percent of the current market value.
( f ) Put or call on a security, certificate of deposit, securities index or foreign currency or a warrant on a securities index or foreign currency: ( 1 ) In the case of puts and calls issued by a registered clearing corporation and listed or traded on a registered national securities exchange or a registered securities association and registered warrants on a securities index or foreign currency, the amount, or other position specified by the rules of the registered national securities exchange or the registered securities association authorized to trade the option or warrant, provided that all such rules have been approved or amended by the SEC; or
( 2 ) In the case of all other puts and calls, the amount, or other position, specified by the maintenance rules of the creditor's examining authority.
[Reg. T, 63 FR 2827, Jan. 16, 1998]
# CA2023280EN.01000101.xml

| 9.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 280/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 280/1

---

Notice amending the notice of open competition – EPSO/AD/402/23 – Administrators (AD 6) in the following fields: 1. Microeconomics/macroeconomics, 2. Financial economics, 3. Industrial economics

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 220A of 22 June 2023
  )

(2023/C 280 A/01)

On page 1:

| for: | ‘Deadline for application: 25 July 2023 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time’, |
| --- | --- |

for:

‘Deadline for application: 25 July 2023 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time’,

| read: | ‘Deadline for application: 26 July 2023 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time’. |
| --- | --- |

read:

read

‘Deadline for application: 26 July 2023 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time’.

On page 5:

| for: | ‘The candidates must apply online on the
  EPSO website (2)
  by 25 July 2023 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time.’, |
| --- | --- |

for:

for

‘The candidates must apply online on the
  EPSO website (2)
  by 25 July 2023 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time.’,

| read: | ‘The candidates must apply online on the
  EPSO website (2) by 26 July 2023 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time.’. |
| --- | --- |

read:

read

‘The candidates must apply online on the
  EPSO website (2) by 26 July 2023 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time.’.

---

(2)  https://epso.europa.eu/en/job-opportunities/open-for-application.

2

---
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 279 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 279

To amend the Small Business Act to include drought in the definition of 
disaster for purposes of the disaster loan program administered by the 
                     Small Business Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2003

   Mr. Hastings of Florida introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Small Business Act to include drought in the definition of 
disaster for purposes of the disaster loan program administered by the 
                     Small Business Administration.

    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 ``Small Business Drought Relief 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF DROUGHT IN DEFINITION OF DISASTER.

     Section 3(k) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(k)) is 
amended by inserting ``drought,'' after ``windstorms,''.
                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHANDRESH KUMAR SOLANKIKHANDUBHAI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74298

Agency No. A098-117-964

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Chandresh Kumar Solanki-Khandubhai, a native and citizen of India,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

FILED

FEB 25 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74298

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for substantial evidence findings of fact, including adverse credibility

determinations. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, and de

novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna

v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on the inconsistency regarding when Solanki-Khandubhai was attacked by

Muslims in his neighborhood; the omission from his testimony of the 2000 riot,

during which he was purportedly seriously injured; and his unresponsiveness to

questions requesting details of the 2000 incident that prompted his departure from

India. See Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043; Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1114

(9th Cir. 2002) (“To support an adverse credibility determination based on

unresponsiveness, the BIA must identify particular instances in the record where

the petitioner refused to answer questions asked of him.”). In the absence of

credible testimony, Solanki-Khandubhai’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
3 07-74298

Because Solanki-Khandubhai’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony

found to be not credible, and Solanki-Khandubhai does not point to any other

evidence that shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to

India, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion or violate Solanki-Khandubhai’s

constitutional right to due process by denying his motion for a continuance to seek

new counsel. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247; Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d

967, 972 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to establish a due process

violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.