alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 125.147 Cowling. ( a ) Cowling must be made and supported so as to resist the vibration, inertia, and air loads to which it may be normally subjected.
( b ) Provisions must be made to allow rapid and complete drainage of the cowling in normal ground and flight attitudes. Drains must not discharge in locations constituting a fire hazard. Parts of the cowling that are subjected to high temperatures because they are near exhaust system parts or because of exhaust gas impingement must be made of fireproof material. Unless otherwise specified in these regulations, all other parts of the cowling must be made of material that is at least fire resistant.
§ 1241.25 Basic program. ( a ) *General* — ( 1 ) *Scope.* Subject to all applicable definitions, conditions, limitations, or exclusions specified in this part, NASA will provide medical monitoring and diagnosis of potentially spaceflight-associated conditions and treatment of a spaceflight-associated conditions, as well as any associated travel expenses for the eligible individual's lifetime.
( 2 ) *Location of medical monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment.* ( i ) Medical monitoring will be provided for eligible individuals at the JSC.
( ii ) When travel is inadvisable due to the health of the eligible individual or when otherwise advantageous to the Government, monitoring may be provided at a location other than the JSC.
( iii ) Diagnosis and treatment will be provided for eligible individuals at locations determined by the medical appropriateness of the facility, patient preferences, cost effectiveness, and other pertinent factors.
( 3 ) *Right to information.* As a condition precedent to participation in this program, NASA is entitled to receive copies of medical records from any physician, hospital or other person, health insurance company, institution, or entity (including a local, state, or U.S. Government agency) providing medical monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment to the eligible individual for which claims or requests for approval for medical monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment are submitted to NASA. As part of this condition precedent, NASA may require eligible individuals to complete such medical releases needed to facilitate obtaining such information as legally required by state and Federal law.
( b ) *Monitoring and Diagnosis.* NASA will provide monitoring and diagnosis for eligible individuals for conditions potentially associated with spaceflight. ( 1 ) Standardized monitoring will be offered routinely at the JSC.
( 2 ) Individualized monitoring will be provided, as necessary.
( 3 ) NASA may pay for and obtain autopsies of eligible individuals, who previously consented in writing or with consent of the next of kin, when such autopsy would contribute substantially to the knowledge of spaceflight physiology or pathology. NASA will coordinate with the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System for such autopsies.
( c ) *Treatment.* NASA will provide or arrange for the treatment of spaceflight-associated conditions. ( 1 ) Treatment will be secondary to any services provided by primary payers.
( 2 ) Should urgency dictate, NASA may provide for conditional payments for treatment.
( d ) *Exclusions and limitations.* In addition to any definitions, requirements, conditions, or limitations enumerated and described in other sections of this part, the following are specifically excluded: ( 1 ) Medical monitoring or diagnosis of an eligible individual for any medical or psychological condition that is not potentially associated with human spaceflight; and
( 2 ) Treatment of an eligible individual for any medical or psychological condition that is not associated with human spaceflight.
# Official Journal C 25/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 25 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6124 January 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 25

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6124 January 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| 2018/C 25/01 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 2 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

2018/C 25/01

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 2

1

---

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

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

EN
§ 1253.135 Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures. ( a ) *Designation of responsible employee.* Each recipient shall designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under these Title IX regulations, including any investigation of any complaint communicated to such recipient alleging its noncompliance with these Title IX regulations or alleging any actions that would be prohibited by these Title IX regulations. The recipient shall notify all its students and employees of the name, office address, and telephone number of the employee or employees appointed pursuant to this paragraph.
( b ) *Complaint procedure of recipient.* A recipient shall adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any action that would be prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  7
<CIK>  0000903651
<NAME>  INNODATA  CORPORATION





       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,535,533
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                2,943,422
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                             7,410,082
[PP&E]                                       2,669,892
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,595,508
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                        2,660,981
[BONDS]                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,284
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,595,508
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                            19,593,353
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                               17,675,673
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                              77,594
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,917,680
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (332,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,249,680
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.49
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40797 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ARTIS RYAN MILLER , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:08

- CR

- 347

- 2

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Artis Ryan Miller, federal prisoner # 37382

- 177, was convicted by a jury of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000 kilograms of marijuana and possessi on with intent to distribute in excess of
100 kilograms of marijuana. He moves for leave to proceed in forma pauper is (IFP) in his appeal of the district court ’ s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, in which he sought a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 15, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40797 Document: 00514349378 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2018No. 17

- 40797

2 Sentencing Guidelines. Miller argues that the district court erred by failing to correctly deter mine drug quantity at his original sentencing and should not have relied upon that erroneous determination to deny his § 3582(c)(2) motion.
He also a rgues that the district court erred by denying relief based upon the determination that he obstructed just ice, which was erroneous when made at his original sentencing

. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Miller challenges the district court ’ s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court ’ s inquiry into a litigant ’ s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omi tted).
Miller ’s challenge to issues that were resolved at his original sentencing hearing lacks merit, as issues that relate to original sentencing determinations may not be relitigated in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 67 4 (5th Cir. 2009). As the district court’s decision reflects
consideration of Miller’s motion and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors , the denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Whitebird , 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 19 95). This appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue. See Howard, 707 F.2d
at 220. Miller’s IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-40797 Document: 00514349378 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2018
#### LONG V. EMPIRE GUANO CO.

(Decided November 27, 1913.) .

Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell..

No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,513,378
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,155,237
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    252,839
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,539,228
<PP&E>                                         165,683
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,561,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,668,494
<BONDS>                                      8,141,071
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,931
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,250,098)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,561,398
<SALES>                                      3,964,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,964,627
<CGS>                                        1,026,661
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,053,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               295,712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,411,696)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,411,696)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,411,696)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* 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. 00-60360

EDDIE MARCO MORENO-ESTRADA, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(A93-076-687)

-------------------- April 5, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

I T IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to vacate t h e decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss petition for review is DENIED;O R D E R No. 00-60360 -2-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to remand petition to the Board of Immigration Appeals without limiting issues to be considered is GRANTED.
#### § 125.121 Proof of compliance with § 125.119.

Compliance with those provisions of § 125.119 that refer to compartment accessibility, the entry of hazardous quantities of smoke or extinguishing agent into compartment occupied by the crew or passengers, and the dissipation of the extinguishing agent in Class “C” compartments must be shown by tests in flight. During these tests it must be shown that no inadvertent operation of smoke or fire detectors in other compartments within the airplane would occur as a result of fire contained in any one compartment, either during the time it is being extinguished, or thereafter, unless the extinguishing system floods those compartments simultaneously.
<PAGE> 
Exhibit 11

                 STANLEY FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.
      SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                           (Unaudited)
              (In thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
                            Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended
                            June 29,  June 30,  June 29, June 30,
                              1997      1996      1997     1996 
<S>                          <C>      <C>        <C>      <C>
Net income used in calcula-
  ting primary and fully
  diluted earnings per 
  common share.............  $2,756   $1,704     $5,528   $3,287


Primary earnings per common
  share:

Weighted average shares
  outstanding..............   4,587    4,727      4,586    4,727
Add shares issuable 
  assuming exercise of
  stock options............     384      115        407       48
    Weighted average number
      of shares used in
      calculating primary 
      earnings per common
      share................   4,971    4,842      4,993    4,775

  Primary earnings per
    common share...........  $  .55   $  .35     $ 1.11   $  .69


Fully diluted earnings per
  common share:

Weighted average shares
  outstanding..............   4,587    4,727      4,585    4,727
Add shares issuable 
   assuming excercise of 
   stock options...........     434      115        434       74
    Weighted average number
      of shares used in 
      calculating fully 
      diluted earnings per
      common share.........   5,021    4,842      5,019    4,801
  
  Fully diluted earnings 
    per common share.......  $  .55   $  .35     $ 1.10   $  .68

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1 

 IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS 

BENEDICT EMESOWUM ) 

Appellant ) 

 ) 

vs. ) 

 ) Trial Case No. 1849562 

 ) Appellate Case No. 01-14-00116-CR

STATE OF TEXAS ) 

Appellee ) 

APPEAL BRIEF 

 NOW COMES Appellant, Benedict Emesowum, and respectfully files this statement regarding 

jurisdiction for this appeal that was absent in Appellant’s brief filed with the court. This was 

inadvertent due to the overwhelming need to address the 100+ points of error and intentional acts that 

occurred in the trial court and beyond. 

STATEMENT ON JURISDICTION 

 This court of appeals has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure, Art 4.03, which states that: “The Court of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction 

coextensive with the limits of their respective districts in all criminal cases except those in which the 

death penalty has been assessed....” 

 Sincerely, 

 __________________ 

 Benedict Emesowum, MPH

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 

I, Benedict Emesowum, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached appeal brief were 

delivered to District Attorney's office, this 16th day of February 2015. 

Sincerely, 

_____________________ 

Benedict Emesowum, MPH

P.O BOX 53911, 

Houston, TX 77052

ACCEPTED

01-14-00116-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/16/2015 1:54:29 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/16/2015 1:54:29 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24492 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 13:58:26 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24492 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 13:58:26 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24492 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 13:58:26 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24492 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 13:58:26 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24492 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 13:58:26 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 5
§ 1203.101 Other applicable NASA regulations. ( a ) Subpart H of this part, “Delegation of Authority to Make Determinations in Original Security Classification Matters.”
( b ) Subpart I of this part, “NASA Information Security Program Committee.”
( c ) NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 1600.2, NASA Classified National Security Information (CNSI).
[44 FR 34913, June 18, 1979, as amended at 78 FR 5117, Jan. 24, 2013]
#### § 1252.411 Age distinctions.

There are no Federal statutes or regulations containing age distinctions which affect financial assistance administered by the agency.
§ 1204.1101 Policy. ( a ) It is NASA policy that an effective, standardized, and comprehensive traffic safety program be established and maintained at all NASA Centers, and component facilities, as prescribed in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8715.C, NASA General Safety Program Requirements. A traffic safety program is essential for the protection and security of NASA laboratories, stations, bases, or other facilities of NASA's aircraft, missiles, spacecraft, or similar vehicles or part thereof and of NASA's real and personal property, including property in the custody of NASA contractors and subcontractors.
( b ) To ensure a safe and secure workplace and to provide better for preservation of life and property, all persons on or in a NASA installation or component facility shall comply with the vehicular and pedestrian traffic requirements of the installation per this Subpart.
( c ) *Vehicular and pedestrian traffic.* The following requirements apply to the drivers or all vehicles on or in NASA-owned, controlled, or leased property: ( 1 ) A driver shall be in possession of a current and valid state- or territory-issued driver's license and vehicle registration, and the vehicle shall display all current and valid tags and licenses required by the jurisdiction in which it is registered.
( 2 ) A driver who has had his or her privilege or license to drive suspended or revoked by any state or territory shall not drive any vehicle in or on such property during such period of suspension or revocation.
( 3 ) Drivers shall drive in a careful and safe manner at all times and shall comply with the signals and directions of security personnel and other authorized individuals; all posted traffic signs, including speed limits; and all rules implemented under section 1204.1102.
( 4 ) Drivers shall not block entrances, driveways, walks, loading platforms, or fire hydrants.
( 5 ) Drivers shall not park without authority, park in unauthorized locations or in locations reserved for other persons, park continuously in excess of 18 hours without permission, or park in any manner contrary to the direction of posted signs.
( d ) A copy of this subpart shall be posted in an appropriate place at each NASA Center or component facility.
[80 FR 70152, Nov. 13, 2015]
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D., as Assignee of Gregory, Charles, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>American Independent Ins. Co., Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Freiberg, Peck &amp; Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for appellant.The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered April 19, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8).</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted. </p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant's motion which sought to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) on the ground that the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <a href="../2018/2018_50943.htm" target="_blank"><i>Pavlova v American Ind. Ins. Co.</i> (60 Misc 3d 128</a>[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50943[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2018]), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted (<a href="../2006/2006_03086.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Basedow</i>, 28 AD3d 766</a> [2006]; <a href="../2005/2005_06425.htm" target="_blank"><i>Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Gutierrez-Guzman</i>, 21 AD3d 489</a> [2005]). </p><p>PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: April 26, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>