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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,522
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,346
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (190)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,513
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,656
<PP&E>                                           6,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,136
<BONDS>                                          4,715
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,606
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,155)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,373
<SALES>                                          1,215
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,215
<CGS>                                            1,385
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (27)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (778)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.334 Motions to quash.

Any person against whom a subpena is directed may file a motion to quash or limit the subpena, setting forth the reasons why the subpena should not be complied with or why it should be limited in scope.
§ 301-71.308 What should we do if the employee does not pay back a travel advance when the travel claim is filed? You should take alternative steps to collect the debt including: ( a ) Offset against the employee's salary, a retirement credit, or other amount owed the employee;
( b ) Deduction from an amount the Government owes the employee; or
( c ) Any other legal method of recovery.
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15974, Apr. 1, 1998. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57967, Sept. 13, 2002]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4308

To amend the North American Wetlands Conservation Act to authorize appropriations for allocations under that Act for wetlands conservation

projects.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 28, 1994

Mr. DINGELL (for himself, Mr. WELDON, Mr. STUDDS, and Mr. FIELDS of

Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To amend the North American Wetlands Conservation Act

to authorize appropriations for allocations under that

Act for wetlands conservation projects.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR AL4 LOCATIONS UNDER NORTH AMERICAN WET5 LANDS CONSERVATION ACT.

6 Section 7(c) of the North American Wetlands Con7 servation Act (16 U.S.C. 4406(c)) is amended by striking

8 ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and all that follows through the end of the

9 sentence and inserting the following: ‘‘$15,000,000 for fis-
2

•HR 4308 IH

1 cal year 1994, $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1995

2 and 1996, $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 and

3 1998, and $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 and

4 2000.’’.

Æ
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants in Error, *v.*ROGER HICKEY and JOHN B. LYNCH, Plaintiffs in Error.

*OTia/g.*74 *of 1854*— what *necessary to authorize conviction under.*

Under chapter 74 of 1854, providing for the punishment of any person convicted of “ any assault upon the person of another with any knife, dirk, dagger or other sharp, dangerous weapon,” no conviction can he had unless the weapon with which the assault is made is sharp, as well as dangerous.

*632Writ OK ERROR to tbe Court of General Sessions of Warren county, to re-view tbe conviction and sentence of tbe plaintiffs in error of an assault with intent to kill.

Tbe indictment charged that tbe plaintiffs in error assaulted one William J. Davis with an iron stove griddle or cover, a club and a chair, with intent to kill him.

Tbe jury rendered tbe following verdict: “ Guilty of an assault and battery, without justifiable or excusable cause, with a dangerous weapon, with intent to do bodily barm.” Tbe prisoners were then sentenced to bard labor in tbe State prison for two years, under tbe act of 1854.

*A. J. Cheritree,*for tbe plaintiffs in error.

*Gha/rles M. Mott,*for tbe defendants in error.

LearNed, P. J.:

We have no doubt that tbe statutory offense must be an assault ■with a sharp as well as with a dangerous weapon. This is tbe reasonable construction of tbe language. It is also tbe construction implied by tbe language of tbe Court of Appeals in tbe case of *Filkins, plaintiff in error,*v. *The People, defendants in error*(4 Weekly Digest).

In tbe present case tbe jury did not find that tbe assault was with a sharp weapon, and it was not, in fact. Tbe verdict, therefore, is in effect for an assault and battery. And the judgment must be reversed, and tbe case remitted to tbe Court of Sessions for a sentence, viz., for a conviction for assault and battery.

Present — LearNed, P. J., Bo'oKes and BoardMAN, JJ.

Judgment reversed and case remitted to Court of Sessions for sentence on verdict of assault and battery.
2891 Noyac Road Om'(jfm^PnmAV^^"i 

P.O. Box 1680 • noHfif''^'*'^'V 

Sag Harbor, NY 11963 

June 23,2010 :vj '?c -; 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations M-30, Federal Aviation Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W 12-140 

West Building, Ground Floor 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

Re: Docket Number FAA 2010 0302 

Dear People: -? 

Thank you for attempting to alleviate the noise from helicopter traffic over eastern Long 

Island, but the proposed FAA rules as stated will only make it worse for those of us in 

eastern Southampton Town. The proposed Northern Route over Long Island Sound 

allows pilots to veer south to reach the East Hampton Airport, and they will take the route 

that uses the least amount of fuel. As you are aware, there is no control tower at the 

airport to direct helicopter traffic. 

First of all, there is a safety issue. Due to several near accidents, right now helicopters 

flying from New York City to the East Hampton Airport usually come in over water and 

head south to the airport over Barcelona Neck, a finger of land which is very lightly 

populated. Flights leaving the airport take a route over Jessups Neck, directly over the 

many houses of those of us living in Noyac, a hamlet that is part of Sag Harbor. If the 

new rules go into effect, the helicopters won't follow the current precedent. An accident 

is almost guaranteed. 

Secondly, the noise will double for those of us in the hamlets of Noyac and North Sea: 

Instead of 100 flights at far less than 2,500 feet over our heads on Friday and Sunday 

evenings as the helicopters ferry people to and from the Hamptons, we will have 200 

flights over our heads. The pilots will take whatever route uses the least ampunt of,time 

and fuel. 

For these reasons, helicopters from NYC using the Northern Route should be required 

to stay over the Long Island Sound to Orient Point, then travel around Orient Point and 

over Gardiners Bay and Barcelona Neck to the East Hampton Airport. This will have the 

least impact on populated areas. On the return trip they could be required to take the 

Southern Route to avoid accidents. 

Thank you for considering these points. 

Very truly yours. 

I: Uf lO
# C_2018014EN.01000201.xml

| 16.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 January 2018

(2018/C 14/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2277 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,81 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4496 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89043 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8335 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1799 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6708 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,531 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,90 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1686 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6278 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,6442 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5434 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5263 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6050 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6828 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6223 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 305,74 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,1034 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9040 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4340 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 337,05 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8568 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,753 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,2832 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,194 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,9237 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,1195 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,9805 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2277

JPY

Japanese yen

135,81

DKK

Danish krone

7,4496

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89043

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8335

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1799

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6708

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,531

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,90

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1686

RON

Romanian leu

4,6278

TRY

Turkish lira

4,6442

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5434

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5263

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6050

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6828

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6223

KRW

South Korean won

1 305,74

ZAR

South African rand

15,1034

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9040

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4340

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 337,05

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8568

PHP

Philippine peso

61,753

RUB

Russian rouble

69,2832

THB

Thai baht

39,194

BRL

Brazilian real

3,9237

MXN

Mexican peso

23,1195

INR

Indian rupee

77,9805

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16272]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-84-000]


Prairieland Energy, Inc.; Notice of Filing

June 22, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 13, 2000, Prairieland Energy, Inc. 
(Prairieland) filed a petition pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, requesting the 
Commission to disclaim jurisdiction over Prairieland as a ``public 
utility'', as that latter term is defined in Section 201(e) of the 
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C.A. Sec. 824(e).
    In its petition, Prairieland states that it intends to engage in 
wholesale electric power and energy purchases and sales as a marketing 
company. Prairieland is a corporation wholly-owned by The Board of 
Trustees of the University of Illinois, a body corporate and politic of 
the State of Illinois.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
and protests should be filed on or before July 5, 2000. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www,ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16272 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1312 Facilities for which no preconstruction authorization is required. ( a ) In the case of facilities for which no Commission authorization prior to construction is required by the Commission's rules and regulations the licensee or applicant shall initially ascertain whether the proposed facility may have a significant environmental impact as defined in § 1.1307 of this part or is categorically excluded from environmental processing under § 1.1306 of this part.
( b ) If a facility covered by paragraph (a) of this section may have a significant environmental impact, the information required by § 1.1311 shall be submitted electronically by the licensee or applicant and ruled on by the Commission, and environmental processing (if invoked) shall be completed, see § 1.1308, prior to the initiation of construction of the facility.
( c ) If a facility covered by paragraph (a) of this section is categorically excluded from environmental processing, the licensee or applicant may proceed with construction and operation of the facility in accordance with the applicable licensing rules and procedures.
( d ) If, following the initiation of construction under this section, the licensee or applicant discovers that the proposed facility may have a significant environmental effect, it shall immediately cease construction which may have that effect, and submit the information required by § 1.1311 of this part. The Commission shall rule on that submission and complete further environmental processing (if invoked), see § 1.1308 of this part, before such construction is resumed.
( e ) Paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section shall not apply to the construction of mobile stations.
[55 FR 20396, May 16, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 13414, Apr. 2, 1991; 83 FR 19458, May 3, 2018; 84 FR 59567, Nov. 5, 2019; 85 FR 85531, Dec. 29, 2020]
SusGlobal Energy Corp.: Exhibit 10.15 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.15

Summary of Terms of Oral Agreement

The following is a summary of the
material terms of an Oral Agreement between Silver Dragon Resources Ltd and
SusGlobal Energy Corp. 

On August 2, 2016 $20,585 ($27,000 CAD)
and on August 11, 2016 $25,159 ($33,000 CAD), was provided to the Company by
Silver Dragon Resources Ltd., an Ontario company in which the Company’s
president and a member of the Board of Directors of the Company is also a
director and chief executive officer. The loans bear interest at the rate of 12%
per annum are unsecured and due on demand. As at September 30, 2016, $813
(December 31, 2015-$nil), in interest is included in accrued liabilities. As at
September 30, 2016, loans payable in the amount of $45,744 ($60,000 CAD)
(December 31, 2015-$nil), were outstanding. On December 5, 2016, the loans were
repaid in full, on an interest free basis. There is no written agreement
evidencing these loans.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT - 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Mossimo, Inc.


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement (No. 333-10071) on Form S-8 of Mossimo, Inc. of our report dated
February 19, 2004, with respect to the balance sheets of Mossimo, Inc. as of
December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2003 and
2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K
of Mossimo, Inc.




/s/ KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
February 19, 2004

                                       24
# Comments on: Restricting Court Access to the National Courts Building Through August 31, 2021
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.21 Parties. ( a ) Any party may appear before the Commission and be heard in person or by attorney.
( b ) The appropriate Bureau Chief(s) of the Commission shall be deemed to be a party to every adjudicatory proceeding (as defined in the Administrative Procedure Act) without the necessity of being so named in the order designating the proceeding for hearing.
( c ) When, in any proceeding, a pleading is filed on behalf of either the General Counsel or the Chief Engineer, he shall thereafter be deemed a party to the proceeding.
( d ) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, a duly authorized corporate officer or employee may act for the corporation in any matter which has not been designated for hearing and, in the discretion of the presiding officer, may appear and be heard on behalf of the corporation in a hearing proceeding.
[28 FR 12415, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 37 FR 8527, Apr. 28, 1972; 44 FR 39180, July 5, 1979; 51 FR 12616, Apr. 14, 1986; 85 FR 63172, Oct. 6, 2020]
§ 301-70.500 What governing policies and procedures should we establish relating to emergency travel? Each agency must determine: ( a ) When you will authorize emergency travel under part 301-30;
( b ) Who will determine if the employee's situation warrants payment for emergency travel expenses;
( c ) When and by whom travel to an alternate location other than official station or point of interruption will be authorized; and
( d ) Who will determine when and if the definition of family may be extended and to whom.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15E0033. IN RE KHASIN.

A15E0034, A15E0035, A15E0036. THE STATE v. SHOOB (three cases).

A superior court has entered an order and filed it in a case styled, “In re

Khasin,” Case Number 2015-EX-00741, in which the judge purports to recuse from

matters handled by a particular assistant district attorney, but not from the cases

themselves.

1 The State has filed four emergency motions, one directly arising from

the order in In re Khasin and three to stay specific criminal cases potentially affected

by the Khasin order.

2 These emergency motions, however, do not meet the

requirements of Court of Appeals Rule 40 (b) because direction to the trial court is

“not necessary to preserve jurisdiction of an appeal or to prevent the contested issue

from becoming moot.”3 Accordingly, the emergency motions are DENIED. 

1

 Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 explains the procedures for recusal from a

particular case or proceeding. See also In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge No.93-154,

263 Ga. 883, 884 (440 SE2d 169) (1994) (“Questions of recusal must be considered

on a case-by-case basis, applying the pertinent laws of this State.”); Ga. Code of

Judicial Conduct Canon 2.11 (A) (“Judges shall disqualify themselves in any

proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or in which:

(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer.

. . .”) (emphasis omitted). 

2 The State hasstyled the three emergency motionsto stay in the criminal cases

as against the superior court judge in her official capacity.

3 We note that the appeal of In re Khasin was docketed in this court on June 10,

2015. 

June 10, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/10/2015
Order filed October 6, 2011

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 10

- 00708

- CV

____________

Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas, Appellant

V.

Zachry Construction Corporation , Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2006

- 72970



### O R D E R

This appeal is set for submission with oral argument on October 20, 2011. Both

parties have filed motions regarding oral argument.

Appellant's motion to extend the time for oral argument to thirty (30) minutes per

side is granted. Appellant may reserve a portion of its 30 minutes for rebuttal

.

Appellee's motion to reserve time for rebuttal is denied.

PER CURIAM
#### § 50-204.75 Transportation safety.

Any requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation under 49 CFR Parts 171-179 and Parts 390-397 and 14 CFR part 103 shall be applied to transportation under contracts which are subject to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. See also § 50-204.2(a)(3) of this part. When such requirements are not otherwise applicable, Chapters 10, 11, 12, and 14 of the Uniform Vehicle Code of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, 1962 edition, shall be applied whenever pertinent.

[35 FR 1016, Jan. 24, 1970]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-cv-24118-BB

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSHI BY BOU GLOBAL, LLC.,

d/b/a Sushi by Bou,

Defendant

_________________________________/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, WINDY LUCIUS, by and through the undersigned counsel, 

hereby notifies the Court that the Parties have reached an agreement in principle that resolves all 

claims that were or could have been brought in this action and are in the process of working on the 

Settlement Agreement. The Parties request that the Court stay all matters and pending deadlines 

in this action and grant the Parties thirty (30) days to finalize their written Settlement Agreement 

and to submit the appropriate notices and/or stipulations to the Court regarding dismissal of the 

Action.

Respectfully submitted on this January 19, 2023. 

By: /s/ J. Courtney Cunningham 

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

FBN: 628166

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, Florida 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com 

legal@cunninghampllc.com

Case 1:22-cv-24118-BB Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2023 Page 1 of 2
Lucius v. Sushi by Bou Global LLC.

Case No. 22-cv-24118-BB

Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 19, 2023, an electronic copy of the foregoing 

document was filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notice of 

electronic filing to all parties and Counsel of record. 

By: /s/ J. Courtney Cunningham 

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

FBN: 628166

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, Florida 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com 

legal@cunninghampllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-24118-BB Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2023 Page 2 of 2