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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001073362
<NAME>                        Elgrande.com, Inc.
<CURRENCY>                    $CN
       
<S>                             <C>           
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.54
<CASH>                                         137,331
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,331
<PP&E>                                         508,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 666,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          175,841
<BONDS>                                        39,543
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       10,793,800
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   666,021
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               568,338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (568,338)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (568,338)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.053)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.053)
        


</TABLE>
#### WORLD OMNI LEASING, INC. v QUESINBERRY

Case No. 89-16115 CW

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County

August 21, 1989

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Rhonda G. Raney, for plaintiff/appellee, World Omni Leasing, Inc.

Dennis B. Freeman, for defendants/appellants, George B. Quesinberry and Jo. J. Quesinberry.

OPINION OF THE COURT

W. HERBERT MORIARTY, Circuit Judge.

THIS CAUSE is an appeal brought by GEORGE B. QUESINBERRY and JO. J. QUESINBERRY, hereinafter Appellants, and the Court being duly advised, finds the following:

Appellants executed an unsecured lease agreement with WORLD OMNI LEASING, INC., hereinafter Appellee, for the lease of a 1986 Toyota automobile. In July 1986, Appellants were involved in an accident which results in a total loss of the Toyota automobile. Appellants received insurance payments which paid $12,705.86 toward the outstanding balance of the lease agreement. However, an alleged *73balance of $3,444.15 remains due and owing to the Appellee pursuant to the lease agreement.

Appellee filed an action in Broward County to recover monies due and owing from the Appellants under the terms of the lease agreement. Appellants moved the Court below to dismiss for improper venue, which was denied. The record below reveals that the Appellants executed the lease agreement in Volusia County, Florida and that the Appellants reside in Volusia County, Florida. Appellants now appeal the non-final order denying the motion to dismiss pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(3)(A).

Inasmuch as this cause involves an unsecured lease agreement, Fla. Stat. § 47.061 governs and sets forth proper venue requirements. Fla. Stat. § 47.061 states in pertinent part:

> Actions on unsecured negotiable or non-negotiable promissory notes shall be brought only in the county in which such notes were signed by the maker or in which the maker or one of the makers resides.

In the instant case the Appellants, the makers of the note, signed the lease agreement in Volusia County and they both reside in Volusia County. Therefore, in accordance with the above statute, venue is not proper in Broward County.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order of the trial court denying Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of improper venue be reversed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of August, 1989, in chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.
#### Hankins *v.*The State.

Violating Prohibition Law.

(Decided February 6, 1917.

74 South. 400.)

, Charge of Court; Argumentative. — A charge asserting that it is a principle of law that justice should he tempered with mercy, is not only argumentative, but asserts no proposition of law.

Appeal from Colbert Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. C. P. Almon.

Andrew Hankins was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

James Jackson, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was indicted for the violation of the prohibition law, in that he sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, or otherwise disposed of, spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, contrary to law, etc. To this indictment the defendant interposed a plea of not guilty; but after the state had introduced its evidence and had made out its case as required by law, the defendant obtained permission of the court to withdraw his plea of not guilty, and thereupon entered a plea of guilty as charged in the indictment.

The only assignment of error disclosed by the record is the court’s refusal to give at request of the defendant, the following written charge:

> “Gentlemen of the jury, it is a principle of law that justice should be tempered in mercy.”

There was no error in refusing this charge, as it embodies no proposition of law and is argumentative, and the court was under no duty to give it.

Finding no error, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
§ 1980.114 District court jurisdiction over retaliation complaints. ( a ) If the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, and there is no showing that there has been delay due to the bad faith of the complainant, the complainant may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United States, which will have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount in controversy. A party to an action brought under this paragraph shall be entitled to trial by jury.
( b ) A proceeding under paragraph (a) of this section shall be governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in § 1980.109. An employee prevailing in any action under paragraph (a) of this section shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including: ( 1 ) Reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the retaliation;
( 2 ) The amount of back pay, with interest;
( 3 ) Compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the retaliation; and
( 4 ) Litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
( c ) Within seven days after filing a complaint in federal court, a complainant must file with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where the proceeding is pending, a copy of the file-stamped complaint. A copy of the complaint also must be served on the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12040]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Petroleum Environmental Research Forum 
(``PERF'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 20, 1999, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Petroleum Environmental 
Research Forum (``PERF'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Canadian Petroleum 
Products Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada has been added as a party 
to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Petroleum Environmental Research 
Forum (``PERF'') intends to file additional written notification 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 10, 1986, Petroleum Environmental Research Forum 
(``PERF'') filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of 
the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 14, 1986 (51 FR 
8903).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 2, 
1999. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on December 2, 1999 (64 FR 67590).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-12040 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
# Επίσημη Εφημερίδα C 171/1 Ιο

| | ISSN 1725-2415 |
| --- | --- |
| Επίσημη Εφημερίδα
  της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | C 171 |
| | |
| Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα | Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες | 47ό έτος1 Ιουλίου 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2415

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα

της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

C 171

Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα

Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες

47ό έτος1 Ιουλίου 2004

---

| Ανακοίνωση αριθ | Περιεχόμενα | Σελίδα |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Ανακοινώσεις |
| | Επιτροπή |
| 2004/C 171/1 | Ισοτιμίες του ευρώ | 1 |

Ανακοίνωση αριθ

Περιεχόμενα

Σελίδα

I   Ανακοινώσεις

Επιτροπή

2004/C 171/1

Ισοτιμίες του ευρώ

1

| EL | |
| --- | --- |

EL

---

I Ανακοινώσεις

Επιτροπή

| 1.7.2004 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | C 171/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2004

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

C 171/1

---

Ισοτιμίες του ευρώ (1)

30 Ιουνίου 2004

(2004/C 171/01)

1 ευρώ=

| | Nομισματική μονάδα | Ισοτιμία |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | δολάριο ΗΠΑ | 1,2155 |
| JPY | ιαπωνικό γιεν | 132,40 |
| DKK | δανική κορόνα | 7,4326 |
| GBP | λίρα στερλίνα | 0,67075 |
| SEK | σουηδική κορόνα | 9,1451 |
| CHF | ελβετικό φράγκο | 1,5242 |
| ISK | ισλανδική κορόνα | 88,33 |
| NOK | νορβηγική κορόνα | 8,4365 |
| BGN | βουλγαρικό λεβ | 1,9559 |
| CYP | κυπριακή λίρα | 0,58150 |
| CZK | τσεχική κορόνα | 31,755 |
| EEK | εσθονική κορόνα | 15,6466 |
| HUF | ουγγρικό φιορίνι | 251,60 |
| LTL | λιθουανικό λίτας | 3,4529 |
| LVL | λεττονικό λατ | 0,6570 |
| MTL | μαλτέζικη λίρα | 0,4263 |
| PLN | πολωνικό ζλότι | 4,5236 |
| ROL | ρουμανικό λέι | 40 626 |
| SIT | σλοβενικό τόλαρ | 239,9900 |
| SKK | σλοβακική κορόνα | 39,875 |
| TRL | τουρκική λίρα | 1 805 300 |
| AUD | αυστραλιανό δολάριο | 1,7554 |
| CAD | καναδικό δολάριο | 1,6343 |
| HKD | δολάριο Χονγκ Κονγκ | 9,4803 |
| NZD | νεοζηλανδικό δολάρτιο | 1,9210 |
| SGD | δολάριο Σιγκαπούρης | 2,0901 |
| KRW | νοτιοκορεατικό γουόν | 1 404,45 |
| ZAR | νοτιοαφρικανικό ραντ | 7,6177 |

Nομισματική μονάδα

Ισοτιμία

USD

δολάριο ΗΠΑ

1,2155

JPY

ιαπωνικό γιεν

132,40

DKK

δανική κορόνα

7,4326

GBP

λίρα στερλίνα

0,67075

SEK

σουηδική κορόνα

9,1451

CHF

ελβετικό φράγκο

1,5242

ISK

ισλανδική κορόνα

88,33

NOK

νορβηγική κορόνα

8,4365

BGN

βουλγαρικό λεβ

1,9559

CYP

κυπριακή λίρα

0,58150

CZK

τσεχική κορόνα

31,755

EEK

εσθονική κορόνα

15,6466

HUF

ουγγρικό φιορίνι

251,60

LTL

λιθουανικό λίτας

3,4529

LVL

λεττονικό λατ

0,6570

MTL

μαλτέζικη λίρα

0,4263

PLN

πολωνικό ζλότι

4,5236

ROL

ρουμανικό λέι

40 626

SIT

σλοβενικό τόλαρ

239,9900

SKK

σλοβακική κορόνα

39,875

TRL

τουρκική λίρα

1 805 300

AUD

αυστραλιανό δολάριο

1,7554

CAD

καναδικό δολάριο

1,6343

HKD

δολάριο Χονγκ Κονγκ

9,4803

NZD

νεοζηλανδικό δολάρτιο

1,9210

SGD

δολάριο Σιγκαπούρης

2,0901

KRW

νοτιοκορεατικό γουόν

1 404,45

ZAR

νοτιοαφρικανικό ραντ

7,6177

---

(1)

Πηγή: Ισοτιμίες αναφοράς που δημοσιεύονται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα.

---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12228]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-21-003]


CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 10, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 17, 2000, CNG Transmission Corporation 
(CNG) submitted a compliance filing and a request for modification of 
the schedule for submission of tariff sheets.
    CNG states that its filing was in compliance with the Commission's 
``Order on Technical Conference'' issued March 31, 2000 in Docket No. 
RP00-21-000 related to CNG's Rate Schedules DPO (Delivery Point 
Operator) and CSC (City Gas Swing Customer) program. CNG explained 
certain specific provisions of its Rate Schedule FTNN as requested in 
the Commission's order. CNG did not file revised tariff sheets in 
compliance with the order because, it explains, it has not yet 
determined whether it can go forward with the program as modified by 
the order. CNG proposes that it will file the requisite tariff sheets 
at least ten days in advance of the date that it proposes to more the 
sheets into effect.
    CNG states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all 
parties set out on the official service list in Docket No. RP00-21.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before May 17, 2000. Protests will be considered by Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in 
the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12228 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-31,789-03

IN RE DONNIS RAY HANC OCK, R elator

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 1471570 IN THE 178T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R
Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ o f m an damus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in the 178th District Court o f Ha rr i s C o u nty , that more than 35 day s have elapse d, and that the application has not y et bee n forwa rded to this Court. I n these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. Respondent, the District Clerk of Har ris County , is order ed to f

ile a response , which may be made by submitt ing the rec ord on such habea s corpus application, submitt ing a copy of a timely filed order which desig nates issues to be investiga ted ( see McCree v. Hampton , 824 S.W .2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in Har ri s County

. Should the response include an order desig nating issues, proof of the date the district attorne y ’s o ff i ce was
serve d with the habea s applicatio n an d that the 180-day time fra me set out in T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 5) has not e x pired shall also be submitt ed with the re sponse. This application for leave to file a writ of m andamus shall be held in abey ance until R espondent has submitt ed the appropr iate response . Such response shall be submitted within 30 day s of the date of this order.

Filed: Oc tober 18, 2017 Do not publish
§ 68.11 Authority to require additional information. ( a ) If the Administrator receives credible or urgent information, including from the National Driver Register or the Administrator's Safety Hotline, that reflects on an individual's ability to safely operate an aircraft under § 61.113(i) of this chapter, the Administrator may require the individual to provide additional information or history so that the Administrator may determine whether the individual is safe to continue operating under that section.
( b ) The Administrator may use credible or urgent information received under paragraph (a) to request an individual to provide additional information or to take actions under 49 U.S.C. 44709(b).
-78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

09/05

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 05 Sep 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.03 N 77.49 W Meters AGL
3/5/2009 Page of 

 POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REVIEW REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P060694 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 6

3/5/2009 Page of 

 POST FOCUS REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P060694 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 6
3/5/2009 Page of 

LEGEND FOR NEW CHEMICALS EXPOSURE REPORT 

This new chemicals exposure report was prepared by the Exposure Assessment Branch (EAB) of the Economics, 

Exposure and Technology Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, USEPA. 

The goals of these reports are to calculate conservative (protective) estimates of exposure endpoints for consumers, 

the general population, and the environment. 

For each exposure scenario to industrial releases, the following three endpoints are calculated: 

(1) maximum possible acute concentrations and doses 

(2) maximum possible chronic concentrations and doses 

(3) for water releases ≥ 20 days, the probability of exceedence of the aquatic concentration of concern 

These endpoints are identified by abbreviations on the Release Activity line, e.g., (1) max ADR, (2) max 

LADD, (3) max PDM. Depending on the release inputs, these endpoints may be calculated and presented on 

the same page or different pages. That is, a release activity ID of mfg; max ADR, max PDM, max LADD

indicates that all the exposure endpoints were calculated from common manufacturing release values; 

conversely, a release activity ID of mfg &proc; max ADR indicates that only the maximum acute exposure 

values were calculated for manufacturing and processing releases that occurred at the same site. 

For each consumer product use exposure scenario, whether exposure is to the user directly or to the general 

population/environment, the maximum exposure values are calculated and presented together. 

In addition to the exposure values above, EPA policy directs that exposure and release values be compared to 

criteria threshold values for Exposure-based and PBT Exposure-based cases. 

Exposure-based (YX) cases (those with ≥ 100,000 kg/yr production volume) 

Criteria are exceeded under the following conditions: 

 Presence in consumer product with likely exposure 

≥ 3E-3 mg/kg/d exposure via air, fish ingestion or drinking water 

≥ 10,000 kg/yr release to environment (post-treatment) 

≥ 1,000 kg/yr release to water (post-treatment) 

Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic (PBT) chemicals of P2B2 rating or higher and production volume ≥ 20,000 kg/yr 

Criteria are exceeded as for YX cases, with the following differences: 

≥ 2,000 kg/yr release to environment (post-treatment) 

≥ 200 kg/yr release to water (post-treatment) 

Bolding rules in the Report: Values for endpoints above that are also health or eco concerns are bolded. 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 6
#### Lina Sternkopf, Respondent, *v.*August H. Hillers et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.

Argued January 12, 1937;

decided January 26, 1937.

*521
      *William G. Johnson*and *Arthur S. Johnson*for appellants.

*Owen S. M. Tierney*and *Albert J. Saltier*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
§ 1955.4 Effect of withdrawal of approval. ( a ) After receipt of notice of withdrawal of approval of a State plan, such plan, or any part thereof, shall cease to be in effect and the provisions of the Federal Act shall apply within that State. But the State, in accordance with section 18(f) of the Act, may retain jurisdiction in any case commenced before receipt of the notice of withdrawal of approval of the plan, in order to enforce standards under the plan, whenever the issues involved in the case or cases pending do not relate to the reasons for withdrawal of the plan.
( b ) Such notice of withdrawal of approval shall operate constructively as notice of termination of all related grants authorized under section 23(g) of the Act in accordance with 29 CFR 1951.25(c).
#### BLACK v. ZEEKUS

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co.

No 9838.

Decided June 10, 1929

Maurer & Bolton, Cleveland, for Black.

Stephen M. Young, Esq., Cleveland, for Zeekus.

*395VICKERY, PJ.

Several errors are complained of as to why this judgment should be reversed, but the main one is that the, plaintiff, who was twelve years old, was guilty of contributory negligence and was not entitled to recover; .that inasmuch as the evidence shows that he looked south and not to the north, he was guilty of contributory negligence.

Now, of course, because the west side of the street was torn up, the plaintiff in error had the right to be on the east side of the street, but it really imposed a little higher degree of care, comparatively speaking, than would Nave been incumbent upon him had the traffic been coming the other way, .because people, many who might be strangers to the situation, as this boy was, knowing that traffic would be on the right side of the street going south, had the right to rely on the fact that there would be no traffic coming from the north on the east side of the street. I say, that would impose a duty upon the driver of a vehicle to use the care commensurate with the added danger to pedestrians, or to those who alighted from streets cars; not that it makes a higher degree of” care, but only ordinary care with relation to the circumstances under which he was driving and on which side of the street he was at the time.

Now the jury having had all this matter before it, having found a very meager verdict for the plaintiff, not at all out of proportion to the injuries that the record shows that he received, in fact it might cost nearly the entire verdict, if he gets it all, to replace the teeth that he lost through the collision, to say nothing of the bruises and pains that he may have suffered, to say nothing of the fact that two teeth are permanently gone by reason of the collision. ,

We think on the whole record, the case having been fairly submitted to the jury and the jury having found for the plaintiff below, that there is evidence which would warrant the verdict, and we do not think that there was any error in the record that would warrant us in disturbing it.

The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine,, JJ, concur.