alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7434

STEVEN W. BELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES B. FRENCH; HAZEL KEITH; J. W. NORRIS,

Defendant - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-573-5-F)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven W. Bell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district

court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. Bell v. French, No. CA-96-

573-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      41,144,326               4,425,808
<SECURITIES>                               232,401,789             203,459,464
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,082,921              36,919,559
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           295,930,620             246,839,054
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             295,930,620             246,839,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      145,026,041             123,892,919
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       104,158                 104,158
<OTHER-SE>                                 150,800,421             122,841,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               295,930,620             246,839,054
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,408,281              16,261,873
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,189,156               2,074,539
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,187,418               4,921,530
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,031,707               9,265,804
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,031,707               9,265,804
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.78                    1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.78                    1.19


</TABLE>
#### § 1905.28 Exceptions.

Within 20 days after service of a decision of a presiding hearing examiner, any party may file with the hearing examiner written exceptions thereto with supporting reasons. Such exceptions shall refer to the specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, or terms of the rule or order excepted to, the specific pages of transcript relevant to the suggestions, and shall suggest corrected findings of fact, conclusions of law, or terms of the rule or order. Upon receipt of any exceptions, the hearing examiner shall fix a time for filing any objections to the exceptions and any supporting reasons.
Exhibit 21.1



ACTUATE CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES

as of December 31, 2010



|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary Name                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|Actuate Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd.
Actuate Canada International Corporation
Actuate Cayman Limited
Actuate Pte. Limited
Actuate Software GmbH
Actuate International Sarl
Actuate International Corporation
Actuate Japan Co., Ltd.
Actuate Limited Actuate Software (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. Actuate UK
Ltd. Xenos IP ILC
Nimble Technology, Inc.
Tidestone Technologies, Inc. |  | Australia
Canada Cayman Islands Singapore
Germany Switzerland State of Delaware, United States of
America Japan
Hong Kong Peoples Republic of China United Kingdom
Canada State of Delaware, United States of America State of
Kansas, United States of America
#### § 1206.6 Eligibility of dismissed employees to vote.

Dismissed employees whose requests for reinstatement account of wrongful dismissal are pending before proper authorities, which includes the National Railroad Adjustment Board or other appropriate adjustment board, are eligible to participate in elections among the craft or class of employees in which they are employed at time of dismissal. This does not include dismissed employees whose guilt has been determined, and who are seeking reinstatement on a leniency basis.

[12 FR 3083, May 10, 1947. Redesignated at 13 FR 8740, Dec. 30, 1948, and further redesignated at 77 FR 75549, Dec. 21, 2012. And further redesignated at 84 FR 35989, July 26, 2019]
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
annual report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 /s/ Joel A. RonningJoel A. RonningChief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES v. HAZEN C. PRATT

[Ante, p. 1;

302 U. S. 750]

Motion to remand and petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court November 22, 1937.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Motor vehicle use map ...Bridger-Teton National Forest. Greys River Ranger District, Wyoming**
 
2011 | 2013
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:B 76/13/
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:000933796
 
February 12, 2018
#### George P. Bangs, App’lt, *v.*James Boyce, Resp’t.

Appeal from judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint •entered on report of referee.

*M. H. Cardozo,*for app’lt; *W. O. Wilson,*for resp’t.

Van Brunt, P. J.

We are of the opinion that the judgment in this case should be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the decision in the case of *Masterson*v. *Boyce,*handed down herewith. *Ante,*p. 198.

Macomber and Bartlett, JJ., concur.
#### CONTINENTAL SUGAR CO v AGNER

Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist, Putnam Co

No 230.

Decided April 24, 1929

Smith, Beckwith, ohlinger & Froelick, Toledo and Lease & Eastman, Ottawa, for Sugar Co.

J. T. DeFord, Ottawa, for Agner.

*525HUGHES, J.

There was no objection made by the defendant to proceeding with the trial, nor was there any objection made by the defendant when it appeared in court to submit the motion to quash on the ground that the justice of the peace had unlawfully delayed the hearing of the case, and thereby lost jurisdiction. When the defendant, being present in court, made no objection to proceeding with the trial, it laid no foundation for error to the common pleas court. The judgment is therefore affirmed. See, Swan’s Treatise, 26th Edition, page 83.

The bill of exceptions filed by plaintiff can not be used for the purposes of this review on error.

Before Judges Hughes, Justice & Crow.
#### § 1620.23 Collective bargaining agreements not a defense.

The establishment by collective bargaining or inclusion in a collective bargaining agreement of unequal rates of pay does not constitute a defense available to either an employer or to a labor organization. Any and all provisions in a collective bargaining agreement which provide unequal rates of pay in conflict with the requirements of the EPA are null and void and of no effect.
# EUR-Lex - 31996R2184 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996R2184

**Council Regulation (EC) No 2184/96 of 28 October 1996 concerning imports into the Community of rice originating in and coming from Egypt **

*
Official Journal L 292 , 15/11/1996 P. 0001 - 0001 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2184/96 of 28 October 1996 concerning imports into the Community of rice originating in and coming from Egypt

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas the Community and the Arab Republic of Egypt have agreed, in an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters, that the customs duties to be applied to imports of rice (CN Code 1006) originating in and coming from Egypt are to be those calculated in accordance with Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 of 21 June 1976 on the common organization of the market in rice (1), reduced by an amount equal to 25 % of the value of those duties, and that the reduction accorded should no longer be subject to the collection by Egypt of an export levy on the product;

Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1250/77 of 17 May 1977 concerning imports of rice from the Arab Republic of Egypt (2) should be repealed accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The customs duties on imports into the Community of rice (CN Code 1006) originating in and coming from Egypt shall be those calculated in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 reduced by an amount equal to 25 % of the value of those duties, within the limits of an annual volume of 32 000 tonnes.

Article 2

The arrangements for the implementation of this Regulation, including any surveillance measures, shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76.

Article 3

Regulation (EEC) No 1250/77 is hereby repealed.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 May 1996.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 28 October 1996.

For the Council

The President

D. SPRING

(1) OJ No L 166, 25. 6. 1976, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 (OJ No L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18).

(2) OJ No L 146, 14. 6. 1977, p. 9.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8Registration Nos. 333-138764, 333-114650, 333-110769, 333-105524, 333-101130, 333-102650,333-80443, 333-47392, 333-72894, 333-75872, 333-82006, and 333-69123 of our report dated March 30,2007 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements which are included in the 2006annual report on Form 10-K of Torvec, Inc.
#### § 1915.1052 Methylene chloride.

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [29 CFR 1910.1052](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1052).

[[62 FR 1619](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/62-FR-1619), Jan. 10, 1997]
# L_2015317EN.01004201.xml

| 3.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 317/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 317/42

---

Corrigendum to Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 290 of 23 October 1997
  )

On page 20, Article 1, introductory phrase:

for:

‘Directive 94/450/EEC is hereby amended as follows:’,

read:

‘Directive 84/450/EEC is hereby amended as follows:’.

---
# EUR-Lex - 31998R1400 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R1400

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/98 of 30 June 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2235/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the aid for the consumption of fresh milk products in the Canary Islands **

*
Official Journal L 187 , 01/07/1998 P. 0054 - 0055 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1400/98 of 30 June 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2235/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the aid for the consumption of fresh milk products in the Canary Islands

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Canary Islands with regard to certain agricultural products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2348/96 (2), and in particular Article 11 thereof,

Whereas Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2235/92 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1802/95 (4), provides for the grant of aid for the human consumption of fresh cows' milk products produced in the Canary Islands within the limit of consumption requirements in those islands; Whereas, in view of the shift in local consumption habits towards more skimmed-milk products, and as a result of a request by the Spanish authorities, the list of fresh milk products set out in the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2235/92 should be amended;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2235/92 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 July 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 June 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 173, 27. 6. 1992, p. 13.

(2) OJ L 320, 11. 12. 1996, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 218, 1. 8. 1992, p. 105.

(4) OJ L 174, 26. 7. 1995, p. 27.

ANNEX

'ANNEX

List of products eligible for the Community aid referred to in Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1601/92:

1. drinking milk;

2. cream;

3. yoghurt;

4. fresh cheese with a fat content by weight of dry matter of not less than 40 %`.
VACATE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed June 17, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01437-CV

IN RE ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, LP

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-01545-2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Brown and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Brown

This is an appeal from an order granting AdvoCare International, LP’s request for a presuit deposition and an order denying eBay Inc.’s motion for new trial and reconsideration. See 

TEX. R. CIV. P. 202. Citing Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2), the parties move to 

dismiss the appeal, vacate the trial court’s orders without regard to the merits, and remand this 

case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. We 

grant the motion to the extent we vacate the trial court’s orders without regard to the merits and 

remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

141437F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN RE ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, 

LP

No. 05-14-01437-CV 

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-01545-2014.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE, without regard to the 

merits, the trial court’s September 16, 2014 “Order on AdvoCare’s Rule 202 Petitions” and the 

November 6, 2014 “Order on eBay’s Motion for New Trial and for Reconsideration” and 

REMAND to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

As agreed by the parties, we ORDER that AdvoCare International, LP and eBay Inc. 

each bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 17th day of June, 2015.
Draft Life-Cycle Cost, Payback Period Analysis Results 

for Medium Voltage Liquid-Immersed Transformers 

for Discussion

Custom Efficiency Sensitivities for Design Lines 1 – 5

Prepared for the Medium Voltage Distribution 

Transformers Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group

November 4, 2011
Custom Efficiency Sensitivities for Design Lines 1 - 5 

Design Line 1 2 3 4 5 

Custom Efficiency 99.13% 98.96% 99.47% 99.13% 99.47%

Life-cycle Cost Results

Transformers with Net Increase in LCC (%) 28.20% 31.74% 4.11% 0.08% 10.88%

Transformers with Net LCC Savings (%) 71.80% 66.35% 94.51% 99.01% 88.94%

Transformers with No Impact on LCC (%) 0.00% 1.91% 1.38% 0.91% 0.18%

Mean LCC Savings ($) 207 112 3692 1357 14034

Median LCC Savings ($) 104 48 2590 1034 14218

Payback Period Results

Mean Payback (Years) 21.8 2.6 6.0 0.3 6.3

Median Payback (Years) 16.8 0.04 5.3 0.0 3.1

Transformers having Well Defined Payback (%) 97.90% 61.10% 96.43% 98.99% 92.72%

Transformers having Undefined Payback (%) 2.10% 38.90% 3.57% 1.01% 7.28%

Mean Retail Cost ($) 2,292 1,364 8,965 5,855 28,671

Mean Installation Costs ($) 2,183 1633 4,231 3,962 8,407

Mean Operating Costs ($) 202 123 1,099 570 2,687

Mean Incremental First Cost ($) 218 0 743 -50 2,039

Mean Operating Cost Savings ($) 17 4 191 54 642

Payback of Average Transformer 13.2 0.0 3.9 -0.9 3.2

Core Material Selection

M12 

M6 

M5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

M4 0.00% 0.00%

M3 41.00% 0.01% 88.25% 91.74% 0.00%

M2 0.00% 91.50% 0.00% 7.25% 0.00%

H0 

ZDMH 50.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.93%

SA1 8.10% 8.49% 11.75% 1.01% 87.07%
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/30

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■

■

■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★ ●

●

●

●
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of William L. Callister et al., as Executors of Thomas Callister, Deceased. Estelle M. Callister, an Incompetent Person, by Walter J. Sharkey, as Special Guardian, et al., Appellants; William L. Callister et al., as Executors of Thomas Callister, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 3, 1937;

decided March 23, 1937.

*605
      *Theodore Reiss*and *Albert Reiss*for Margrethe Callister, as executrix of Herbert J. Callister, deceased, appellant.

*Walter J. Sharkey*as special guardian for Estelle M. Callister, appellant.

*Franklin A. Rogers*and *Stanley F. Maslak*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing and filing separate briefs payable out of the estate. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.