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

                                                    

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the audited
balance sheet of Lucent at September 30, 1997 and the audited consolidated
statement of income for the year ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.           
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                    1,350
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                             5,725
<ALLOWANCES>                                352
<INVENTORY>                               2,926
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         12,501
<PP&E>                                   11,554
<DEPRECIATION>                            6,407
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           23,811
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    10,738
<BONDS>                                   1,665
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      6
<OTHER-SE>                                3,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             23,811
<SALES>                                  26,360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         26,360
<CGS>                                    14,898
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            14,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          9,831
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            127
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          305
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,467
<INCOME-TAX>                                926
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         541
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                541
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.84
        



</TABLE>
August 25, 1998



Mr. Sam Hon                                                      
5521 Toyon
San Diego, California 92115

       Re:  NevStar Gaming & Entertainment Corporation -- $250,000 financing
          commitment dated April 27, 1998 (the "Commitment")

Dear Mr.  Hon:

     As you are aware, by letters dated June 24, 1998, July 20, 1998 and
August 10, 1998, NevStar Gaming & Entertainment Corporation ("NevStar") has
requested advances pursuant to the above-referenced Commitment totaling
$212,500.  Proportionately larger advances were requested at the same time
from Dr. Kelley and Richard Tam pursuant to their loan commitment.

     NevStar has agreed to accept a single advance from Dr. Kelley and
Richard Tam at this time of $400,000.  Dr. Kelley and Richard Tam have agreed
that NevStar will be entitled to call for a second advance upon ten (10) days
written notice (instead of the twenty (20) days called for in both their and
your loan commitments).  In light of the above, NevStar requests your
agreement that the following shall apply to your loan Commitment:

      1.   You shall make a $100,000 initial advance on your loan commitment;

      2.   You agree to make a second advance on your loan commitment upon
          ten (10) days written notice from NevStar; and

     3.   Any subsequent advances (beyond the second advance) on your loan
          commitment will require a twenty (20) day written notice from
          NevStar.

<PAGE>
     If the above is acceptable to you, will you please so indicate by your
signature below.

                              Very truly yours,

                            ZEVNIK HORTON GUIBORD McGOVERN PALMER &
                              FOGNANI, L.L.P.


                              By: /s/ Richard Moskitis                   
                                     Richard L. Moskitis



I AGREE TO THE ABOVE MODIFICATIONS TO THE LOAN COMMITMENT.



Dated: August 25, 1998             /s/ Sam Hon                                
                              Sam Hon







RLM:bdk

cc:  Mr. Jeffrey L. Gilbert (via fax: 702-269-1326) 
     Mr. James M. Shadlaus (via fax: 702-382-9877)
     Kenneth D. Polin, Esq.

C:\MyFiles\98063010KSB\9810kx29.txt
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.028-6 Container. ( a ) *General.* Containers for the stowage of signal pistols and pistol projected parachute red flare distress signals in lifeboats and life rafts on merchant vessels are not required to have specific approval or to be of specific design except for certain material, marking, and test requirements, which requirements are contained in § 160.024-6 of subpart 160.024.
( b ) [Reserved]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

      ( print page 20015)    
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the National Research Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Monday, May 7, 2007, in room 900 at the Greenhoot Cohen Building, 1722 I Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will convene at 8 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Council is to provide external advice and review for VA's research mission. The May 7 meeting agenda will include a review of the VA research portfolio, a summary of current budget allocations and a discussion of information security. The Council will also provide feedback on the direction/focus of VA's research initiatives.

                    Any member of the public who expects to attend the meeting or wants additional information should contact Jay A. Freedman, PhD, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 254-0267. Oral comments from the public will not be accepted at the meeting. Written statements or comments should be transmitted electronically to                     *jay.freedman@va.gov*                     or mailed to Dr. Freedman at Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development (12), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420.                

Dated: April 16, 2007.

By Direction of the Secretary.

E. Philip Riggin,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-1948 Filed 4-19-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
# C_2015096EN.01001101.xml

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2015 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-204/11) (1)

1

((Consumer protection - Regulation (EU) No 15/2011 - Methods for the detection of lipophilic toxins in bivalve molluscs - Replacement of the mouse bioassay method by the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method - Article 168 TFEU - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations))

(2015/C 096/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially M. Muñoz Pérez, subsequently S. Martínez-Lage Sobredo and lastly A. Rubio González, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and A. Marcoulli, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 15/2011 of 10 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 as regards recognised testing methods for detecting marine biotoxins in live bivalve molluscs (OJ 2011 L 6, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.

1

---
§ 170.075 Plans. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each applicant for an original certificate of inspection and approval of plans must also submit three copies for plan review being conducted by the Coast Guard Marine Safety Center of each of the following plans: ( 1 ) General arrangement plan of decks, holds, and inner bottoms including inboard and outboard profiles.
( 2 ) Lines.
( 3 ) Curves of form.
( 4 ) Capacity plan showing capacities and vertical, longitudinal, and transverse centers of gravity of stowage spaces and tanks.
( 5 ) Tank sounding tables showing— ( i ) Capacities, vertical centers of gravity, and longitudinal centers of gravity in graduated intervals; and
( ii ) Free surface data for each tank.
( 6 ) Draft mark locations including longitudinal location and vertical reference points.
( b ) Each small passenger vessel that is designed to comply with the alternate intact stability requirements in § 178.320 of this subchapter and the simplified method of spacing main transverse watertight bulkheads in § 179.220 of this subchapter does not have to submit the plans required by paragraph (a) of this section.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51010, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 85-080, 61 FR 944, Jan. 10, 1996; CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51217, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78083, Dec. 14, 2010]
§ 169.209 Routes permitted. ( a ) The area of operation for each vessel is designated by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection and recorded on its Certificate of Inspection. Each area of operation is described on the Certificate of Inspection under the major headings “exposed waters,” “partially protected waters,” or “protected waters,” as applicable. Further limitations imposed or extensions granted are described by reference to bodies of waters, geographical points, distance from geographical points, distances from land, depths of channel, seasonal limitations, etc.
( b ) Operation of vessels on routes of lesser severity than those specifically described or designated on the Certificate of Inspection are permitted, unless expressly prohibited on the Certificate of Inspection. The general order of severity is: exposed, partially protected, and protected waters.
###### Editorial Note on Part 160

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 160.036-6 Container.

(a) *General.* The container for storing the signals on lifeboats and liferafts is not required to be of a special design or be approved by the Coast Guard. The container must meet the requirements in Subpart 160.021 (§ 160.021-6) except that the wording on the container must be:

# Hand-Held Rocket-Propelled Parachute Red Flare Distress Signals

(b) [Reserved]
#### A. MICHAEL LePORE, PLAINTIFF, v. HENRY DeMEESTER, DEFENDANT.

Submitted October 11, 1929

Decided December 13, 1929.

Before Justices Paekee, Black and B odine.

For the rule, *Filbert L. Bosenstein.*

*ContraJohn W. Oclcford.*

Pee Cueiam.

The plaintiff brought suit to recover for professional services. The trial resulted in a judgment of $1,500. The ground upon which we are asked to make this rule absolute is that the defendant has a just and legal defense to the action, and that through error and misunderstanding he was deprived of the opportunity to defend.

It appears from the proofs that the counsel to whom the defense was entrusted was misinformed as to the position of the case upon the calendar by an inadvertent mistake of his managing clerk.

We are of the opinion that the judgment should be opened in so far as it is necessary to permit a new trial. The plaintiff may hold his judgment as security to abide the outcome of the new trial. In all other respects the rule will be made absolute.
###### Editorial Note on Part 160

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 160.171-5 Independent laboratory.

The approval and production tests in this subpart must be conducted by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of this chapter.
§ 176.202 Permit to proceed. ( a ) When a vessel is not in compliance with its Certificate of Inspection or fails to comply with a regulation of this subchapter, the cognizant OCMI may permit the vessel to proceed to another port for repair, if in the judgment of the OCMI, the trip can be completed safely, even if the Certificate of Inspection of the vessel has expired or is about to expire.
( b ) Form CG-948, “Permit to Proceed to another Port for Repairs,” may be issued by the cognizant OCMI to the owner, managing operator, or the master of the vessel stating the conditions under which the vessel may proceed to another port. The permit may be issued only upon the written application of the owner, managing operator, or master, and after the vessel's Certificate of Inspection is turned over to the OCMI.
( c ) A vessel may not carry passengers when operating in accordance with a permit to proceed, unless the cognizant OCMI determines that it is safe to do so.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 953, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58288, Sept. 29, 2014]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 25, 2013

h0617 

# Order

Clerk June 25, 2013

146076(22)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146076

COA: 311574

Oakland CC: 1982

- 055278

- FY

MARTY B. MILLER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 29,

2013 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not a ppear that the order was

entered erroneously.
**Statement      Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the **

**Sarbanes-Oxley      Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

|   | A) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or                78o(d)) and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | B) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company                as of the dates and for the periods covered by the                Report. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |                                                                                                                                                                                                                |              |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|
| Date: March 31, 2008 |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     | /s/ Andrew Gordon |
|                 | Andrew              Gordon President,                Chief Executive Officer andChief                Financial Officer (Principal                Executive Officer and Principal                Accounting Officer) |

----
#### ELBERT PALING, BY NEXT FRIEND, ET AL., APPELLEE, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Submitted May 17, 1929

Decided June 21, 1929.

Before Justices Parker and Bodine.

For the appellant, *George G.*Tennant, *Jr.*

Por the appellee, *Irving Prince.*

Per -Curiam.

The plaintiff, who according to his claim, was a passenger on the defendant’s railroad, boarded a train of the defendant at Weehawken on his way home at about five-thirty p. m. and took a seat with a friend. It was a hot day, and they wished to open the window. This window was double. They succeeded in opening the inner window, and according to the testimony for the plaintiff, as they were working on the outer, window to open that also, the entire pane of glass of that window fell inward, and broke, cutting the plaintiff’s hand.

There was np explanation in the plaintiff’s case as to why the pane of glass dropped out. The case for the defendant was that the two young men were hammering on the glass and broke it in that way. This seems to have raised a question of fact for the trial judge sitting as a jury.

On the trial it was urged that there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff ivas a passenger; but this seems to be now abandoned.

*555It was further urged that there was nothing in the circumstances to indicate negligence of the defendant; and this naturally raised the question of *res ipsa loquitur.*We think that a question for the jury was raised by the occurrence of the accident, in the manner claimed by the plaintiff, and which the judge, sitting as a jury, was entitled to believe, and are content to rest this conclusion on the case of *Hughes*v. *Atlantic City Railroad Co.,*85 *N. J. L. 212.*This case is relied on for the appellant; but the reversal of the judgment for plaintiff in that case was based upon error in the charge in which the court improperly shifted the burden of proof.

The final ground urged was andáis that the evidence conclusively showed that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; and this depends entirely upon the view that the trial judge took of the facts. If, as we must assume, he found that the glass fell out because the plaintiff was trying to lift the window there was no reason why as a matter of law he should be required to find that the plaintiff was negligent in what he did.

The judgment will be affirmed.
#### § 91.31 General responsibilities.

Each HHS recipient has primary responsibility to ensure that its programs or activities are in compliance with the Act and these regulations, and shall take steps to eliminate violations of the Act. A recipient also has responsibility to maintain records, provide information, and to afford HHS access to its records to the extent HHS finds necessary to determine whether the recipient is in compliance with the Act and these regulations.

[47 FR 57858, Dec. 28, 1982, as amended at 70 FR 24322, May 9, 2005]
MIE 1A 

Revised 07/12

Order of the Court to Continue Supervision 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

for the 

Eastern District of Michigan 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

 FRANKO, Joseph Michael Crim. No.: 14-CR-20616-01 

On May 2, 2016, the Court authorized the issuance of a supervised release summons based upon a violation 

petition citing a violation of supervision. The issue of the violation was heard in Court on May 23, 2016, and 

the Court made the following finding(s): 

X Guilty of violating condition(s) of supervision. The offender was continued on supervised release, and the 

following special conditions of supervision are added: 

1. Supervised Release is extended for one year; 

2. The offender shall comply with a reasonable curfew, as directed by the probation officer. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ David Smith 

United States Probation Officer 

ORDER OF THE COURT

Pursuant to the above, it is ordered that the pending violation matter be resolved and 

supervision in this case be continued. All conditions imposed at the time of 

sentencing, along with any subsequent modifications to those conditions, remain in 

effect. 

Dated this 2nd Day of June, 2016. 

S/Robert H. Cleland 

Honorable Robert H. Cleland 

United States District Judge 

2:14-cr-20616-RHC Doc # 8 Filed 06/03/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 37
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.060-18 Suspension, withdrawal, or termination of approval. The Coast Guard may suspend an approval issued under this subpart or alternate management system (AMS) determination issued under 33 CFR 151.2026(d) of a ballast water management system (BWMS) in accordance with 46 CFR 2.75-40, withdraw an approval or AMS determination in accordance with 46 CFR 2.75-50(a), or terminate an approval or AMS determination in accordance with 46 CFR 2.75-50(b) if the BWMS or AMS, as manufactured— ( a ) Is found non-compliant with the conditions of approval;
( b ) Is unsuitable for the purpose intended by the manufacturer;
( c ) Does not meet the requirements of applicable laws, rules, and regulations, and other Federal requirements when installed and operated as intended by the manufacturer; or
( d ) Cannot be maintained to operate as designed, due to lack of parts or necessary support services.
§ 116.1110 Drainage of flush deck vessels. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the weather deck on a flush deck vessel must be watertight and have no obstruction to overboard drainage.
( b ) Each flush deck vessel may have solid bulwarks in the forward one-third length of the vessel if: ( 1 ) The bulwarks do not form a well enclosed on all sides; and
( 2 ) The foredeck of the vessel has sufficient sheer to ensure drainage aft.