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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          4,408,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,896,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      667,000
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,151,000
<PP&E>                                          4,954,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,114,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 19,190,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,850,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                        25,000
<COMMON>                                           64,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,971,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   19,190,000
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               20,116,000
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               20,701,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (585,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (585,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.20)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2012324EN.01001201.xml

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/12

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 21 May 2012 in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson

(Case E-3/12)

2012/C 324/10

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 21 May 2012 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 29 May 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson, on the following question:

When national legislation requires, inter alia, actual stay in the State in order to be entitled to unemployment benefits, is it then compatible with Article 71(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to require continued stay in the competent State (the State of last employment) in order to be granted such benefits from this State, also in the case of a wholly unemployed person who, during his/her last employment, has stayed there as a ‘non-genuine’ frontier worker?

Is it relevant to the answer to this question whether:

| 1. | the unemployed person lives in a country near the competent State (the State of last employment), so that it is possible in practice for that person to appear at the employment office in that State even if he/she does not stay there? |
| --- | --- |

1.

the unemployed person lives in a country near the competent State (the State of last employment), so that it is possible in practice for that person to appear at the employment office in that State even if he/she does not stay there?

| 2. | the unemployed person, after having returned to the State of residence, registers as a job seeker with the employment service and also applies for unemployment benefits in that State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

the unemployed person, after having returned to the State of residence, registers as a job seeker with the employment service and also applies for unemployment benefits in that State?

---
# C_2010320EN.01002101.xml

| 25.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/21

---

Action brought on 23 August 2010 by Aleris Ungplan AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-13/10)

2010/C 320/10

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 August 2010 by Aleris Ungplan AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, NORWAY.

The applicant requests the EFTA Court:

| 1. | to annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 248/10/COL concerning Cases Nos 66111 and 66744 of 21 June 2010; |
| --- | --- |

1.

to annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 248/10/COL concerning Cases Nos 66111 and 66744 of 21 June 2010;

| 2. | to order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

to order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | The Applicant, Aleris Ungplan AS, is a private provider of youth services in Norway. Aleris Ungplan AS is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Aleris Group which has its headquarter in Stockholm, Sweden. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant, Aleris Ungplan AS, is a private provider of youth services in Norway. Aleris Ungplan AS is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Aleris Group which has its headquarter in Stockholm, Sweden.

| — | The Applicant lodged a complaint with the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that the exclusion of all youth care providers except for non-profit organisations from two public procurements relating to youth care services in Norway was contrary to the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant lodged a complaint with the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that the exclusion of all youth care providers except for non-profit organisations from two public procurements relating to youth care services in Norway was contrary to the EEA Agreement.

| — | With the contested decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the case, considering that the exclusions were not contrary to the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

With the contested decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the case, considering that the exclusions were not contrary to the EEA Agreement.

| — | The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:






  — | failed to uphold the principle of non-discrimination of Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC and the rules applicable to public procurement under EEA law, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

—

failed to uphold the principle of non-discrimination of Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC and the rules applicable to public procurement under EEA law, and

| — | failed to sufficiently state the reasons for its decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to sufficiently state the reasons for its decision.

---
§ 336.8 Sanctions and remedial actions. ( a ) Any employee found not in compliance with the minimum standards except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section below shall be terminated and prohibited from providing further service for or on behalf of the FDIC in any capacity. No other remedial action is authorized for sanctions for noncompliance.
( b ) Any employee found not in compliance with the minimum standards under § 336.5(a)(3) based on financial irresponsibility as defined in § 336.3(i)(1) shall be terminated consistent with applicable procedures and prohibited from providing future services for or on behalf of the FDIC in any capacity, unless the employee brings him or herself into compliance with the minimum standards as provided in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. ( 1 ) Upon written notification by the Corporation of financial irresponsibility, the employee will be allowed a reasonable period of time to establish an agreement that satisfies the creditor and the FDIC as to resolution of outstanding indebtedness or otherwise resolves the matter to the satisfaction of the FDIC prior to the initiation of a termination action.
( 2 ) As part of the agreement described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the employee shall provide authority to the creditor to report any violation by the employee of the terms of the agreement directly to the FDIC Ethics Counselor.
#### § 337.10 Waiver.

An insured State nonmember bank has the right to petition the Board of Directors of the Corporation for a waiver of this part or any subpart thereof with respect to any particular transaction or series of similar transactions. A waiver may be granted at the discretion of the Board upon a showing of good cause. All such petitions should be filed with the Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429.

[39 FR 29179, Aug. 14, 1974, as amended at 67 FR 71071, Nov. 29, 2002]
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3056 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3056

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 14, 2004

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To clarify the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coast Barrier Resources 
      System Cedar Keys Unit P25 on Otherwise Protected Area P25P.

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

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER 
              RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP.

    (a) In General.--Of the 2 maps subtitled ``P25/P25P'' that relate 
to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System unit designated 
as Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys Unit P25/P25P and are 
included in the set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources 
System'' referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), the map depicting the northernmost area of 
that unit is hereby replaced by another map relating to that unit 
entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys 
Unit P25/P25P'' and dated February 9, 2004.
    (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the 
replacement map referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for 
inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).

            Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997                 DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         2159000                     6412000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                           0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2343000                     6615000
<PP&E>                                         3227000                     2589000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  882000                      150000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5734000                    11074000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1786000                     1827000
<BONDS>                                              0                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                           0
<PREFERRED>                                      17000                      538000
<COMMON>                                        453000                      233000
<OTHER-SE>                                     2255000                     7786000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5734000                    11074000
<SALES>                                              0                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                      164000
<CGS>                                                0                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9923000                    19826000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              126000                        4000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (10049000)                  (19666000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                           0
<CHANGES>                                            0                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                (10049000)                  (19666000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.43)                      (2.03)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)                      (2.03)<F1>

<FN>
<F1>To restate earnings per share to reflect adoption of SFAS 128, earnings
per share.
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### § 268.408 Effect of filing a civil action.

Filing a civil action under §§ 268.406 or 268.407 shall terminate Commission processing of the appeal. If private suit is filed subsequent to the filing of an appeal, the parties are requested to notify the Commission in writing.
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-12-0560

SAT Date: 10/2/2012

Print Date: 11/7/2012

Related cases: 

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

3 12

Exposure Based Review:

Health: Yes Exposure based testing (health): Inhalation only

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Drinking Water Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: NEURO, IMMUNO, BLOOD, SENS-RESPIRATORY, GI, LUNG

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-12-0560

FATE: 

Solid 

S < 1 mg/L at 25 C (E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = 50-90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = strong

PBT Potential: P3B1
*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow

 Health:

 Health Summary: : Absorption is nil through based on physical/chemical 

properties. Absorption maybe poor through the lungs and GI tract for at least some of the 

material. There is concern for neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, and blood effects for any Pb that 

is bioavailable; concern for respiratory sensitization and immunotoxicity for any Ni, Pb, Al, Cu, 

and Fe that is bioavailable; and concern for digestive system upsets for any Cu that reaches the 

GI tract. There is also concern for lung effects from lung overload associated with inhalation of 

poorly soluble respirable particles. Low moderate concern. 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic 

value

*

algal _ chronic 

value

*

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for mixed metal salts; SAR 

chemical class = mixed metal salt - insoluble; solid; S < 0.001 mg/L at 20 C (P); pH7; effective 

concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; DW hardness < 

150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DW TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

*

SARs mixed metal salts

SAR Class mixed metal salt - insoluble

Ecotox Category None

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: Becky Jones
§ 34.213 Appraisal management company registration. Each State electing to register AMCs pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section must: ( a ) Establish and maintain within the State appraiser certifying and licensing agency a licensing program that is subject to the limitations set forth in § 34.214 and with the legal authority and mechanisms to: ( 1 ) Review and approve or deny an AMC's application for initial registration;
( 2 ) Review and renew or review and deny an AMC's registration periodically;
( 3 ) Examine the books and records of an AMC operating in the State and require the AMC to submit reports, information, and documents;
( 4 ) Verify that the appraisers on the AMC's appraiser panel hold valid State certifications or licenses, as applicable;
( 5 ) Conduct investigations of AMCs to assess potential violations of applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders;
( 6 ) Discipline, suspend, terminate, or deny renewal of the registration of an AMC that violates applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders; and
( 7 ) Report an AMC's violation of applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders, as well as disciplinary and enforcement actions and other relevant information about an AMC's operations, to the Appraisal Subcommittee.
( b ) Impose requirements on AMCs that are not owned and controlled by an insured depository institution and not regulated by a Federal financial institutions regulatory agency to: ( 1 ) Register with and be subject to supervision by the State appraiser certifying and licensing agency;
( 2 ) Engage only State-certified or State-licensed appraisers for Federally related transactions in conformity with any Federally related transaction regulations;
( 3 ) Establish and comply with processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC, in engaging an appraiser, selects an appraiser who is independent of the transaction and who has the requisite education, expertise, and experience necessary to competently complete the appraisal assignment for the particular market and property type;
( 4 ) Direct the appraiser to perform the assignment in accordance with USPAP; and
( 5 ) Establish and comply with processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC conducts its appraisal management services in accordance with the requirements of section 129E(a) through (i) of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1639e(a) through (i), and regulations thereunder.
* 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. 00-40739 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE VILLAFRANCA-CABRERA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-78-1

-------------------- April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Villafranca-Cabrera appeals his 41-month sentence following his plea of guilty to a charge of illegal re-entry to the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Villafranca-Cabrera asserts that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been alleged in the indictment. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for SupremeNo. 00-40739 -2- Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63 (2000). Villafranca-Cabrera’s argument is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. AFFIRMED.
# C_2005159EN.01002901.xml

| 30.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/29

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstlicher Landrichter by decision of that court of 13 December 2004 in the case of Paolo Piazza v Paul Schurte AG

Paolo Piazza

Paul Schurte AG

(Case E-10/04)

(2005/C 159/11)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 13 December 2004 of Fürstlicher Landrichter (Princely Court of Justice), Vaduz, Liechtenstein, which was received at the Court Registry on 31 December 2004, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Paolo Piazza v Paul Schurte AG, on the following question:

Paolo Piazza

Paul Schurte AG

Is a provision such as that contained in Section 56(2) of the Liechtenstein Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure) compatible with EEA law, in particular with the freedom to provide services under Article 36 of the EEA Agreement and the freedom of movement of capital under Article 40 thereof? If such a provision is justifiable, is it also proportionate?

---
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3116 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3116

To amend the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 to extend 
         the deadline for filing a claim to December 31, 2004.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2003

 Mr. Fossella introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 to extend 
         the deadline for filing a claim to December 31, 2004.

    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 ``September 11th Victim Compensation 
Fund Extension Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE A CLAIM TO DECEMBER 31, 2004.

    Section 405(a) of September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 
(Public Law 107-42; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is amended by striking 
paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
            ``(3) Limitation.--No claim may be filed under paragraph 
        (1) after December 31, 2004.''.
                                 <all>
```