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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      11,421,710
<SECURITIES>                                18,425,979
<RECEIVABLES>                                  556,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                    44,427
<INVENTORY>                                     60,317
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,602,829
<PP&E>                                       6,555,909
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,008,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,033,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,600,921
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       151,922
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,033,894
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,199,154
<CGS>                                        1,554,132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,982,669
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               142,017
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,052,159)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (873,373)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (339,476)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (533,897)
<DISCONTINUED>                               1,288,997
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   755,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 11992M/PRO/SEBC/48 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11992M/PRO/SEBC/48

**Treaty on European Union - Protocol on the statute of the european system of central banks and of the European Central Bank - Chapter IX: Transitional and other provisions for the ESCB - Article 48: Transitional provisions for the capital of the ECB **

*
Official Journal C 191 , 29/07/1992 P. 0078 *

Article 48

Transitional provisions for the capital of the ECB

In accordance with Article 29.1 each national central bank shall be assigned a weighting in the key for subscription of the ECB's capital. By way of derogation from Article 28.3, central banks of Member States with a derogation shall not pay up their subscribed capital unless the General Council, acting by a majority representing at least two thirds of the subscribed capital of the ECB and at least half of the shareholders, decides that a minimal percentage has to be paid up as a contribution to the operational costs of the ECB.
### UCMR 3 524.3 Question Brenda Parris to: kdurk, tlasher 05/19/2011 04:10 PM Cc: Michella Karapondo Hello Kevin and Tina, The answer to your question. 1. Some MRLs in UCMR 3 are lower than the LCMRLs in EPA method 524.3. Were the LCMRLs recalculated for the proposed UCMR 3? Answer 1. Yes, the LCMRLs were recalculated for UCMR 3. Table 6 in method 524.3 states that the LCMRLs and detection limits were determined using full scan mode . The LCMRLs for 524.3 in UCMR 3 were determined using SIM mode . The same LCMRL methodology was used in both the 524.3 method and proposal. Thanks, Brenda and Michella
LANDSCAPING TO ATTRACT BIRDS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 50 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 50

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require the 
 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to give priority 
consideration to selecting Pensacola and Perdido Bays as an estuary of 
             national significance, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pensacola and Perdido Bays Estuary 
of National Significance Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. PENSACOLA AND PERDIDO BAYS.

    Section 320(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``and Lower Columbia 
River, Oregon and Washington'' and inserting ``Lower Columbia River, 
Oregon and Washington; and Pensacola and Perdido Bays, Florida''.

SEC. 3. INELIGIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO FISCAL YEARS 2024 AND 2025.

    With respect to the amendment made by section 2, the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency may not use for the 
implementation of that amendment, including, with respect to Pensacola 
and Perdido Bays, Florida, convening a management conference, 
developing or carrying out a comprehensive conservation and management 
plan, or providing grants under section 320 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330)--
            (1) any amounts appropriated to carry out the national 
        estuary program under that section for fiscal year 2024; or
            (2) unless the total amount appropriated to carry out that 
        program for fiscal year 2025 is at least $850,000 more than the 
        total amount appropriated to carry out that program for fiscal 
        year 2023, any amounts appropriated to carry out that program 
        for fiscal year 2025.

            Passed the Senate March 12, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 50

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require the 
 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to give priority 
consideration to selecting Pensacola and Perdido Bays as an estuary of 
             national significance, and for other purposes.
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 648

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 648 appear at 62 FR 14651, Mar. 27, 1997.

#### § 648.146 Black sea bass recreational fishing season.

Vessels that are not eligible for a black sea bass moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(7), and fishermen subject to the possession limit specified in § 648.145(a), may only possess black sea bass from May 15 through September 8, unless otherwise specified in the conservation equivalent measures described in § 648.151 or unless this time period is adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.142. However, possession of black sea bass harvested from state waters outside of this season is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.151 and abide by state regulations.

[88 FR 55419, Aug. 15, 2023]
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60190 Conference Calendar

__________________ LAFELDT RUDD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SANDRA DAVIS ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:94-cv-561LN

- - - - - - - - - - (October 18, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * An in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it has no arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce , 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993); see Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). Section 1915(d) dismissals are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 34. Appellees Sanders, Wingate, and Peters are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for damages in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions arising out of acts performed in the exercise of theirNo. 95-60190 -2- judicial and prosecutorial functions. Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994) (prosecutorial immunity); Graves v. Hampton , 1 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1993) (judicial immunity). Lafeldt Rudd's claims against the remaining defendants call into question the validity of his conviction and sentence and may not be considered in a § 1983 action, under the rule in Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994), because Rudd has not demonstrated that his conviction and sentence have been invalidated. There was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint without providing Rudd with an opportunity to amend his pleadings because it does not appear that the deficiencies in his pleadings could be remedied through more specific pleading. See Eason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 9-10 (5th Cir. 1994). Under § 1915(d), Rudd was not entitled to conduct discovery prior to dismissal of his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 219, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Rudd is WARNED that the filing of frivolous appeals in the future will result in the imposition of sanctions. APPEAL DISMISSED.
|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 1 | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of SunPower Corporation; |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 2 | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 3 | [omitted]; |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 4 | [omitted]; |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 5 | [omitted]. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   | /S/ CHARLES D. BOYNTON |
|   | Charles D. Boynton |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | (Principal Financial Officer) |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |
# EUR-Lex - 11965F/PRO/PRI/09 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11965F/PRO/PRI/09

**TREATY ESTABLISHING A SINGLE COUNCIL AND A SINGLE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, CHAPTER III: MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY, ARTICLE 9 **

*
Official Journal L 152 , 13/07/1967 P. 0014 *

++++

ARTICLE 9

MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY FORM OF INQUIRY , DETENTION OR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF OPINIONS EXPRESSED OR VOTES CAST BY THEM IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES .
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


The  undersigned,  who are the chief  executive  officer and the chief financial
officer of Southcoast Financial Corporation,  each hereby certifies that, to the
best of his  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form  10-Q of the  registrant  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  and that  information  contained  in the  report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the registrant.




Date:    November 13, 2009                           /s/ L. Wayne Pearson
         -----------------                           ---------------------------
                                                      L. Wayne Pearson
                                                      Chief Executive Officer




                                                      /s/ William C. Heslop
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      William C. Heslop
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
Hillsborough

No. 82-099

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Russell E. Hebert

December 28, 1982

*Gregory H. Smith,*attorney general *(Peter W. Mosseau,*assistant attorney general, on the brief), by brief for the State.

*1090
      *Russell E. Hebert,*of Concord, by brief, pro se.

Memorandum Opinion

Russell E. Hebert seeks the return to him of certain personal property that he alleges is his but has been improperly retained by the State. In June 1980, Hebert was arrested for receiving a stolen car, *see*RSA 637:7. In the car at the time of his arrest were coins and silverware valued at $4,686.76. Although Hebert was convicted of receiving a stolen car, he has not been charged with any crime in connection with the coins and silverware. The Superior Court *(Goode,*J.) denied Hebert’s motion for return of these items, without prejudice to any civil remedy he might wish to exercise.

RSA 595-A.-6 (Supp. 1981) provides, in pertinent part, that any property seized by police

> “shall be returned to the owner of the property, or shall be disposed of as the court or justice orders, which may include forfeiture and either sale or destruction as the public interest requires in the discretion of the court or justice, and in accordance with due process of law.”

The standard of review of the trial court’s order issued pursuant to RSA 595-A:6 (Supp. 1981) is whether the court abused its discretion in denying Hebert’s motion for the return of the coins and silverware. *State v. Gullick,*120 N.H. 99, 105, 411 A.2d 1113, 1117, *cert. denied,*449 U.S. 879 (1980).

In *Gullick,*the defendant sought appellate review, *inter alia,*of the superior court’s denial of his motion for return of various items of clothing illegally seized by the police. There, the defendant failed to provide this court with a transcript of the hearing on his motion for return of the seized property. We held that, under the circumstances, it could not be said that the lower court had abused its discretion: “There is no transcript before us of any hearing on the defendant’s motion to have his clothing returned. Without a record, and in view of the discretionary language of RSA 595-A:6, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion.” 120 N.H. at 105, 411 A.2d at 1117.

As in *Gullick,*Hebert has failed to provide us with a transcript of the hearing below on his motion for the return of the coins and silverware. Without a transcript, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

*Affirmed.*
# EUR-Lex - 12002E249 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E249

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Five: Institutions of the Community - Title I: Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 2: Provisions common to several institutions - Article 249 - Article 189 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 189 - EEC Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0132 - 0132 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0278 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0065 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Five: Institutions of the Community

Title I: Provisions governing the institutions

Chapter 2: Provisions common to several institutions

Article 249

Article 189 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 189 - EEC Treaty

Article 249

In order to carry out their task and in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, the European Parliament acting jointly with the Council, the Council and the Commission shall make regulations and issue directives, take decisions, make recommendations or deliver opinions.

A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

A decision shall be binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed.

Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Report of Apollo
Medical Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2015 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William Abbott, Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany
the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after
the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



|Dated:  November 16, 2015 | By: | William R. Abbott      
|------------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                          |     |                        
|                          |     | /s/ William R. Abbott  
|                          |     |                        
|                          |     | Chief Financial Officer
§ 222.101 Purpose and scope of regulations. ( a ) The regulations of parts 222, 223, and 224 of this chapter implement the Endangered Species Act (Act), and govern the taking, possession, transportation, sale, purchase, barter, exportation, importation of, and other requirements pertaining to wildlife and plants under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce and determined to be threatened or endangered pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. These regulations are implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, This part pertains to general provisions and definitions. Specifically, parts 223 and 224 pertain to provisions to threatened species and endangered species, respectively. Part 226 enumerates designated critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. Certain of the endangered and threatened marine species enumerated in §§ 224.102 and 223.102 are included in Appendix I or II to the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The importation, exportation, and re-exportation of such species are subject to additional regulations set forth at 50 CFR part 23, chapter I.
( b ) For rules and procedures relating to species determined to be threatened or endangered under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, see 50 CFR parts 10 through 17. For rules and procedures relating to the general implementation of the Act jointly by the Departments of the Interior and Commerce and for certain species under the joint jurisdiction of both the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, see 50 CFR Chapter IV. Marine mammals listed as endangered or threatened and subject to these regulations may also be subject to additional requirements pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (for regulations implementing that act, see 50 CFR part 216).
( c ) No statute or regulation of any state shall be construed to relieve a person from the restrictions, conditions, and requirements contained in parts 222, 223, and 224 of this chapter. In addition, nothing in parts 222, 223, and 224 of this chapter, including any permit issued pursuant thereto, shall be construed to relieve a person from any other requirements imposed by a statute or regulation of any state or of the United States, including any applicable health, quarantine, agricultural, or customs laws or regulations, or any other National Marine Fisheries Service enforced statutes or regulations.
R18-2-529. Renumbered 

Historical Note

Adopted effective September 22, 1983 (Supp. 83-5). Former Section R9-3-529 renumbered 

without change as Section R18-2-529 (Supp. 87-3). Amended effective September 26, 1990 

(Supp. 90-3). Renumbered to R18-2-729 effective November 15, 1993 (Supp. 93-4).

R18-2-729. Standards of Performance for Cotton Gins

A. Fugitive dust, lint, bolls, cotton seed or other material emitted from a cotton gin or lying loose 

in a yard shall be collected and disposed of in an efficient manner or shall be treated in 

accordance with R18-2-604 through R18-2-607.

B. No person shall cause, allow or permit to be emitted into the atmosphere, from any type of 

incinerator, smoke, fumes, gases, particulate matter or other gas-borne material which exceeds 

40% opacity.

C. No person shall cause, allow, or permit the discharge of particulate matter into the atmosphere 

in any one hour from any cotton gin in total quantities in excess of the amounts calculated by 

one of the following equations:

1. For process sources having a process weight rate of 60,000 pounds per hour (30 tons per 

hour) or less, the maximum allowable emissions shall be determined by the following 

equation:

E = 4.10P0.67

where:

E = the maximum allowable particulate emissions rate in pounds-mass per hour.

P = the process weight rate in tons-mass per hour.

2. For process sources having a process weight rate greater than 60,000 pounds per hour (30 

tons per hour), the maximum allowable emissions shall be determined by the following 

equation:

E = 55.0P0.11-40

where “E” and “P” are defined as indicated in subsection (C)(1).

D. The test methods and procedures required by this Section are as follows:

1. The reference methods in the Arizona Testing Manual and 40 CFR 60, Appendix A shall be 

used to determine compliance with this Section as follows:

a. Method A-2 for the measurement of particulate matter,

b. Method 1 for sample and velocity traverses,

c. Method 2 for velocity and volumetric flow rate,

d. Method 3 for gas analysis,

e. Method 9 for visible emissions.

2. For Method A-2, the sampling time for each run shall be at least 60 minutes and the sampling 

rate shall be at least 0.85 dry standard cubic meters per hour (0.53 dry standard cubic feet 

per minute), except that shorter sampling times, when necessitated by progress variables 

or other factors, may be approved by the Director.
Historical Note

Section R18-2-729 renumbered from R18-2-529 and amended effective November 15, 1993 

(Supp. 93-4). Amended by final rulemaking at 13 A.A.R. 2157, effective August 4, 2007 

(Supp. 07-2).