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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,963
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,963
<PP&E>                                           2,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       (266)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,734
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,074)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Amount is less than $.01 per share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 553.222 Sleep time. ( a ) Where a public employer elects to pay overtime compensation to employees in fire protection activities and/or law enforcement personnel in accordance with section 7(a)(1) of the Act, the public agency may exclude sleep time from hours worked if all the conditions in § 785.22 of this title are met.
( b ) Where the employer has elected to use the section 7(k) exemption, sleep time cannot be excluded from the compensable hours of work where ( 1 ) The employee is on a tour of duty of less than 24 hours, which is the general rule applicable to all employees under § 785.21, and
( 2 ) Where the employee is on a tour of duty of exactly 24 hours, which is a departure from the general rules in part 785.
( c ) Sleep time can be excluded from compensable hours of work, however, in the case of police officers or employees in fire protection activities who are on a tour of duty of more than 24 hours, but only if there is an expressed or implied agreement between the employer and the employees to exclude such time. In the absence of such an agreement, the sleep time is compensable. In no event shall the time excluded as sleep time exceed 8 hours in a 24-hour period. If the sleep time is interrupted by a call to duty, the interruption must be counted as hours worked. If the sleep period is interrupted to such an extent that the employee cannot get a reasonable night's sleep (which, for enforcement purposes means at least 5 hours), the entire time must be counted as hours of work.
[52 FR 2032, Jan. 16, 1987, as amended at 76 FR 18857, Apr. 5, 2011]
#### § 408.5 Annual financial report.

During the continuance of a trusteeship, the labor organization which has assumed trusteeship over a subordinate labor organization, shall file with the Office of Labor-Management Standards on behalf of the subordinate labor organization the annual financial report required by part 403 of this chapter, signed by the president and treasurer or corresponding principal officers of the labor organization which has assumed such trusteeship, and the trustees of the subordinate labor organization on Form LM-2.

[86 FR 74371, Dec. 30, 2021]
(77 South. 930)

#### HAYS v. WALKER et al.

(5 Div. 265.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 15, 1918.)

Appeal and Error &wkey;>719(l) — Assignments of Error — Necessity.

In the absence of assignments of error, no error can be considered except one of jurisdiction.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Action between R. H. I-Iays and Lucinda Walker and others. ’ Prom the judgment, Hays appeals.

Affirmed.

T. G. Ililyer, of Tallassee, for appellant. P. W. Lull, of Wetumpka, for appellees.

SAMPORD, J.

There are no assignments of error, and under the rule and tire decisions, no error can be considered, except one of jurisdiction. The trial court had jurisdiction, and the judgment is -affirmed.

Affirmed.
ATTACHMENT A

PROPOSED STAFF’S MODIFICATIONS TO ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (Document made available at the March 27, 2008 Boar d Hearing)

• Requirement for the 2009-2011 Model Years. A large volume manufacturer electing to be subject to the alternative complianc e requirements during model years 2009 through 2011 must produce, deliver for sale, a nd place in service in California enough 2009-2011 model-year Type III ZEVs to genera te ZEV credits sufficient to meet a cumulative percentage ZEV requirement of 0.8 4 percent of the manufacturer’s average annual California sales of P Cs, LDT1s, and 68 percent of LDT2s over the three year period from model years 2 003 through 2005, or submit an equivalent number of credits generated by such vehi cles. The manufacturer may meet this requirement with [i] 2009-2011 model-year Type I, I.5, II, III, or IV ZEVs, provided that 2 Type I ZEVs or 1.6 Type I.5 ZEVs, o r 1.33 Type II ZEVs or 0.8 Type IV ZEVs will equal one Type III ZEV and [ii] 1997-2 003 model-year ZEVs that qualify for an extended service multiplier under section 19 62.1(f) for a year primarily during calendar years 2009-2011, provided that 33 years of such a multiplier will equal one Type III ZEV. Manufacturers may elect, on an annua l basis, to determine their alternative requirement using either the prior 4th, 5th, and 6th model years method or the current year method.

• ZEV credits generated from production by an interm ediate volume manufacturer prior to being subject to large volume manufacturer requirements may carried forward and applied to the first three years of mee ting ZEV requirements as a large

volume manufacturer.

• The value of ZEV credits generated in any state th at is administering the California ZEV requirements pursuant to section 177 of the Cle an Air Act shall be multiplied by the ratio of total large volume manufacturer sales in such state for the subject model year to total large volume manufacturer sales in Ca lifornia for the same model year.

• ZEV credits for advanced technology demonstration projects may be earned for up to 25 vehicles in a demonstration program.
### Re: Reclamation Use of Ash Meeting

Sherman Lundy to

: Steve Souders 11/10/2011 02:51 PM

Copy of Groundwater Monitoring Results.xlsx

>

Steve: Attached to this email is the latest update from the well

monitoring we have been doing for the wells around our CCR reclamation

site. Notice the wells d o not show any type of dissolution of any heavy

metals from the coal ash further illustrating the placement of the coal

ash in limestone quarries for quarry reclamation in a non karst

situation can be done without the need for subtitle D or C

requireme nts. Further as indicated last year, the cementious character

of the ash when pugged with water creates a new product in this process

further binding any anions or cations. As you consider directives for

coal ash, it is not a hazardous material and fu rther beneficial use for

limestone quarries as reclamation material should be excluded from

regulatory requirements for other methods of ash placement or listed as

an approved process without additional restrictions. We would also

propose the need for groundwater monitoring as part of this effort

thereby eliminating any subtitle requirements.

Sherman Luindy

BMC Aggregates

Elk Run Heights, IA
p110532.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 11-0532 Focus Ready Draft 8/8/2011

ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ AH PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (08/02/2011):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: PMN: Health 1-2, Eco 3. Deg Pdt: Health 2, Eco 3. Migration to groundwater: Moderate PBT rating: P3B3T2 PMN: P3B3T1; Deg Pdt: P3B3T2 Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 2ppb)

Page 1p110532.eng

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

Page 2p110532.eng

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 11-0532

Page 3p110532.eng

Page 4p110532.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 11-0532

Page 5p110532.eng

Page 6p110532.eng

Page 7
----

Election of the Presidents of Chambers

(2004/C 251/22)

On 10 and 13 September 2004 the Court of First Instance, in accordance with Article 15 of its Rules of Procedure, elected Judge Jaeger, Judge Pirrung, Judge Vilaras and Judge Legal as Presidents of the Chambers composed of five Judges for the period from 10 September 2004 to 31 August 2007 and Judge Jaeger, Judge Pirrung, Judge Vilaras, Judge Legal and Judge Cooke as Presidents of the Chambers composed of three Judges for the period from 13 September 2004 to 30 September 2005.

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-10833

Summary Calendar

ERNEST BENTON CORDELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HOOD COUNTY; GENE MAYO, Hood County Sheriff,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CV-452

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Ernest Benton Cordell, Texas prisoner # 1574525, appeals the district

court’s judgment of dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Hood

County, Texas, Hood County Sheriff Gene Mayo, and Tarrant County, Texas.

Cordell argues that the district court erred by dismissing his claims against

Tarrant County and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Cordell

has also filed two motions for the appointment of counsel.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 12, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-10833 Document: 00511260159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2010
No. 09-10833

Cordell’s brief and his motions for appointment of counsel do not address

the district court’s finding that Hood County and Sheriff Mayo were entitled to

summary judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9) (providing that the brief must

include argument with appellant’s contentions, citations to the record, and

supporting authorities). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction,

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), arguments must be briefed to be

preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Cordell’s

failure to identify any error in the district court’s analysis constitutes an

abandonment of his claims against Hood County and Sheriff Mayo. Brinkmann

v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Next, the district court did not err in dismissing Tarrant County from the

litigation after the parties, including Cordell through his counsel, filed a joint

stipulation dismissing Tarrant County under FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Cordell does not argue, and the record does not indicate, that the district court

was ever informed of Cordell’s purported disagreement with counsel.

Finally, as the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel does

not apply in civil cases, see Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237

(5th Cir. 1986), we do not decide whether Cordell’s counsel rendered ineffective

assistance here.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. Cordell’s motions for the appointment of counsel are DENIED.

2

Case: 09-10833 Document: 00511260159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2010
(77 South. 939)

#### HUFF v. STATE.

(5 Div. 267.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 22, 1918.)

1. Criminal Law &wkey;>789(3) — Instructions— Reasonable Doubt.

In prosecution for trespass after warning, charge that if the jury believed the evidence they must find defendant guilty was erroneous for failing to predicate conviction upon belief of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Trespass <&wkey;81 — After Warning — Churches.

A church is protected under the statute defining the offense of trespass, but it must act in giving the warning through its duly constituted officers.

3. Trespass <&wkey;81 —After Warning — Elements of Offense — “Trespass after Warning.”

To establish the offense of trespass in a church after warning, possession of the church and warning by the duly constituted officers of the church, and the actual trespass on the premises within six months after the warning was given, must be proved.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County ; Leon McCord, Judge.

Joe Huff was convicted of trespass after warning, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Middleton & Reynolds, of Clanton, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate and Emmett S. Thigpen, Attys. Gen., for the- State.

SAMFORD, J.

[1] At the conclusion of the evidence, the court, at the reguest of the state; gave the following written charge:

> “The court charges the jury that if they believe the evidence, they must find the defendant guilty as charged, and assess a fine of - dollars.”

The giving of this charge was error, for which the judgment must be reversed. The jury is not authorized to convict a defendant of crime unless they believe the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

As this case must be remanded for another trial, and there are other rulings of the court to which exceptions were taken, some of them having merit and others not, we feel impelled to give the law of this case, based upon the record before us, that the trial court may be guided thereby on another trial.

[2, 3] The statute is intended for the protection of the possession against intruders and trespassers. Brunson v. State, 140 Ala. 201, 37 South. 197. The possession of a church is as much protected as that of an individual, but the possession of the church must be proven as any other fact in the case. The fact of possession having been proven, the warning to the defendant to keep off must be proven, and that it was given by those having the authority to do so. The church, in giving the warning, must act through its duly constituted officers. This proof can be made either directly or by such facts and circumstances as would warrant the jury in arriving at the conclusion that the warning had been given and by the proper authority. These facts having been shown, it must be shown by the evidence that the defendant went on the premises after having been warned, within six months next preceding, not to do so.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
# sunCOL!ntry

Mr. Brett Kruger Office of International Aviation U.S Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 April 27, 2015

Re: DOT-OST-2015-0086: Application of MN Airlines, LLC d/b/a Sun CountryAirlines for exemption Polling Results Dear Mr. Kruger: We have completed our polling in the above-referenced docket, and have received no objections to the Application of MN Airlines, LLC d/b/a Sun Country Airlines for an exemption relating to service between Ft. Myers, FL and Cancun, MX. We respectfully request that the Department grant the requested authority and notify the Mexican authorities of the planned service pursuant to the U.S. Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement. Thatyou very much for your assistance. Regards,

Thomas W. General Counsel Cc: Robert.wirick@aa.com; dan.weiss@united.com; jhill@cooley.com; john.varley@virginamerica.com; chris.walker@delta.com; Robert.land@jetblue.com; bob.kneisley@wnco.com; leslie.abbott@wnco.com; howard.kass@aa.com; jyoung@yklaw.com; slachter@cozen.com

1300 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Corporate Headquarters 651.681.3900 Reservations 800.359.6786 Fax 651.681.3901
Motion Granted; Order filed May 14, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00735-CR

____________

JERALD MARQUISE MURRAY SENIOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 82258-CR

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant filed a motion requesting

to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The motion is 

granted.
Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 239th District Court to afford 

appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local 

procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before

May 29, 2019; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on which 

delivery of the record to appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se brief 

with this court within thirty days of that date.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6450

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARLOW ANDRE FARMER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-8, CA-01-113-7) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlow Andre Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Marlow Andre Farmer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Farmer , Nos. CR-97-8; CA-01-113-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2002). 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
#### § 452.58 Self-nomination.

A system of self-nomination, if this is the only method for making nominations, deprives union members of a reasonable opportunity to nominate candidates and thus is inconsistent with the provisions of title IV.[34] Self-nomination is permissible only if the members are afforded additional methods whereby they may nominate the candidates of their choice.

###### Footnotes -
  452.58

[34] See *Wirtz* v. *National Maritime Union of America,* 399 F.2d 544 (C.A. 2 1968).
#### § 417.23 Report to the Director.

Following completion of the hearing and vote, the Director's Representative shall file a report with the Director setting out the results of the balloting; and pertinent details of the hearing and vote. Notice thereof shall be given to the membership of such labor organization promptly and copies shall be furnished to all interested parties.

[29 FR 8264, July 1, 1964, as amended at 78 FR 8025, Feb. 5, 2013]
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 24 June 2004 in the case of Franz Egenberger GmbH Molkerei und Trockenwerk against Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

(Case C-313/04)

(2004/C 239/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court), Frankfurt am Main of 24 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 26 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Franz Egenberger GmbH Molkerei und Trockenwerk against Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung on the following question:

----

(1)  OJ L 341, p. 29.

(2)  OJ L 160, p. 48.

(3)OJ L 336, de 23.12.1994, p. 151.

----
# EUR-Lex - 32000R2796 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R2796

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2796/2000 of 20 December 2000 amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs **

*
Official Journal L 324 , 21/12/2000 P. 0026 - 0026 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2796/2000

of 20 December 2000

amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1509/2000(2), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 1(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) In order to meet the expectations of certain agricultural producers, for whom ornamental plants and flowers are one of the main sources of income, such products should be included in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. Since they are agricultural products it is possible that such producers may lodge applications for their registration under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 given the link that they may have with certain geographical regions.

(2) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Regulatory Committee on Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, the following product is added:

"- Ornamental plants and flowers."

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 20 December 2000.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 174, 13.7.2000, p. 7.