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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q OF VLSI TECHNOLOGY,
INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000704386
<NAME> VLSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         154,439
<SECURITIES>                                    28,794
<RECEIVABLES>                                  118,833
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,000)
<INVENTORY>                                     62,417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               412,810
<PP&E>                                         905,741
<DEPRECIATION>                               (416,127)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 914,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,090
<BONDS>                                        212,269
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           472
<OTHER-SE>                                     522,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   914,133
<SALES>                                        533,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               533,197
<CGS>                                          325,827
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  325,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                77,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    67
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,841
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,101
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,025
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,076
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,076
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6708

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DARIO RUIZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:11-cr-00077-RBH-1)

Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dario Ruiz, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dario Ruiz appeals the district court’s order denying his 

motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

(2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Ruiz, No. 4:11-cr-00077-RBH-1 

(D.S.C. Apr. 23, 2015); see United States v. Brown, 653 F.3d 

337, 340 (4th Cir. 2011). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
98-2208.

#### In re Enforcement of Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Peh.

On October 21,1998, movant, Ohio State Bar Association, filed a motion requesting this court to order Tony Peh to appear before the court to show cause why he failed to obey a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. On November 23,1998, movant filed a notice of the action that respondent had taken to purge himself of contempt. On December 16, 1998, this court ordered that the movant be awarded all costs and fees in this action, including reasonable attorney fees, that the movant incurred in prosecuting this enforcement proceeding. On December 28, 1998, respondent filed a motion to vacate this court’s order of December 16, 1998. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to vacate the court’s December 16, 1998 order be, and is, hereby, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, *sua sponte,*that all documents filed with this court in this ease shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, *1496including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.

Moyer, C.J., F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE RANDERS
GROUP INCORPORATED  QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER
27,  1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                APR-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                  2,463
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          15,628
<ALLOWANCES>                              531
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       32,288
<PP&E>                                 15,095
<DEPRECIATION>                          3,380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         90,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   9,022
<BONDS>                                 2,042
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                   13
<OTHER-SE>                             77,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           90,645
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       35,075
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          25,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           81
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         3,272
<INCOME-TAX>                            1,447
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     1,825
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            1,825
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        

</TABLE>
*Monday, January 4, 1999*

MERIT DOCKET

98-2710.

#### State ex rel. Nicastro v. Stralka.

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.

Douglas, Acting C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs because prohibition is an improper remedy.

Cook, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.

Moyer, C.J., not participating.
98-2529.

#### Bob Daniels Buick Co. v. Gen. Motors Corp.

Franklin App. No. 97APE12-1701. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and a claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
Editorial Note on Part 173
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 70 FR 56098, Sept. 23, 2005.

§ 173.153 Exceptions for Division 6.1 (poisonous materials). ( a ) *General.* Exceptions for hazardous materials shipments in the following paragraphs are permitted only if this section is referenced for the specific hazardous material in the § 172.101 table of this subchapter.
( b ) *Limited quantities.* The exceptions in this paragraph do not apply to poison-by-inhalation materials. Limited quantities of poisonous material (Division 6.1) in Packing Groups II and III are excepted from the labeling requirements, unless the material is offered for transportation or transported by aircraft, and are excepted from the specification packaging requirements of this subchapter when packaged in combination packagings according to this paragraph. For transportation by aircraft, the package must also conform to applicable requirements of § 173.27 of this part (*e.g.,* authorized materials, inner packaging quantity limits and closure securement) and only hazardous material authorized aboard passenger-carrying aircraft may be transported as a limited quantity. A limited quantity package that conforms to the provisions of this section is not subject to the shipping paper requirements of subpart C of part 172 of this subchapter, unless the material meets the definition of a hazardous substance, hazardous waste, marine pollutant, or is offered for transportation and transported by aircraft or vessel, and is eligible for the exceptions provided in § 173.156 of this part. In addition, shipments of limited quantities are not subject to subpart F (Placarding) of part 172 of this subchapter. Each package must conform to the packaging requirements of subpart B of this part and may not exceed 30 kg (66 pounds) gross weight. Except for transportation by aircraft, the following combination packagings are authorized: ( 1 ) For poisonous materials in Packing Group II, inner packagings not over 100 mL (3.38 ounces) each for liquids or 0.5 kg (1.1 pounds) each for solids, packed in a strong outer packaging. Inner packagings containing a liquid poisonous material which is also a drug or medicine in Packing Group II may be increased to not over 250 mL (8 ounces) each and packed in a strong outer packaging.
( 2 ) For poisonous materials in Packing Group III, inner packagings not over 5 L (1.3 gallons) each for liquids or 5.0 kg (11 pounds) each for solids, packed in a strong outer packaging.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Reverse logistics.* Hazardous materials meeting the definition of “reverse logistics” under § 171.8 of this subchapter and in compliance with paragraph (b) of this section may be offered for transport and transported in highway transportation in accordance with § 173.157.
[Amdt. 173-224, 55 FR 52634, Dec. 21, 1990, as amended by Amdt. 173-231, 57 FR 52940, Nov. 5, 1992; 66 FR 45381, Aug. 28, 2001; 68 FR 45033, July 31, 2003; 69 FR 76156, Dec. 20, 2004; 71 FR 14603, Mar. 22, 2006; 71 FR 54938, Sept. 20, 2006; 76 FR 3374, Jan. 19, 2011; 78 FR 1114, Jan. 7, 2013; 81 FR 18539, Mar. 31, 2016; 87 FR 79776, Dec. 27, 2022]
BELKNAP.

#### Cole *and Wife v.*Laconia Savings Bank.

No homestead right exists in land on which there is no dwelling-house, and which is not occupied or used, nor intended to be occupied or used, as a homo place or part of a home place, although the claimant has no other real estate.

*54Bill in Equity, for a homestead. The parties agreed upon, the following facts for the opinion of the court:

May 28, 1878, the plaintiff, Stephen B. Cole, was the owner of one undivided half of the premises described in the bill, being about sixty acres, part mowing and part wood land; and he had no other real estate. On the above day, the defendants, having an execution against him, caused the same to be - levied on said land, subject only to the wife’s right of dower. Said land never had any dwelling-house on it, and the petitioners were then residing about three miles away.

*Barnard*Barnard, for the plaintiffs.

Hibbard, for the defendants.

Doe, C. J.

Upon the facts stated, the bill should be dismissed. The case does not show occupation, use, or intention. It does not appear that the premises are a part of the place of the plaintiffs’ home.

*Gase discharged.*

Foster, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 10, 2007)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 37627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3384]



[[Page 37625]]

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

Part IV





The President





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



Memorandum of July 3, 2007--Assignment of Certain Functions Relating to 
Nuclear Energy Facilities


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 37627]]

                Memorandum of July 3, 2007

                
Assignment of Certain Functions Relating to 
                Nuclear Energy Facilities

                Memorandum for the Secretary of Health and Human 
                Services[,] the Secretary of Energy[,] the Secretary of 
                Homeland Security[,] the Chairman of the Nuclear 
                Regulatory Commission[, and] the Director of the Office 
                of Science and Technology Policy

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States, 
                including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, 
                and section 204(b) of the National Science and 
                Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 
                1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6613(b)), the functions of 
                the President under section 127 of the Public Health 
                Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act 
                of 2002 (Public Law 107-188) (42 U.S.C. 247d-6b note) 
                are assigned as follows:

(1) the function of making a determination under subsection 127(f) of 
Public Law 107-188 is assigned to the Director of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy; and

(2) the functions of the President under section 127 of Public Law 107-188 
other than that assigned under subsection 127(f) are assigned to the 
Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

                In the performance of such functions the Chairman and 
                the Director should consult each other and the 
                Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Energy, and 
                Homeland Security, as appropriate.

                The Director is authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register. 
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

[FR Doc. 07-3384
Filed 7-9-07; 9:57 am]
Billing code 3170-W7-P
#### McKinney v. McKinney.

(Decided October 10, 1919.)

Appeal from "Warren Circuit Court.

1. Divorce — Alimony—Appeal.—While the Court of Appeals lias no power to reverse a decree of divorce, it may review the decree to determine whether alimony was properly awarded.

2 Divorce — -Alimony.—Where it was shown that the husband had at least $2,000.00 and probably more, and was receiving a salary of $1,500.00 a year, an allowance of $2,000.00 alimony to his wife waa not excessive.

B. F. WALLACE and SIMS, RODES & SIMS for appellant.

BRADBURN & BASHAM and OLIVER & DIXON for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

William Rogers Clay, Commissioner

Affirming.

Christine McKinney sued her husband, T. D. McKinney, for divorce and alimony. He counterclaimed for divorce on the ground that she was guilty of such lewd and lascivious behavior as proved her to be unchaste. On final hearing’ the chancellor held that the charge of unchastity was not sustained by the evidence, but that plaintiff’s ground of divorce was fully established, and entered a decree giving plaintiff a divorce and awarding her alimony in the sum of $2,000.00. Defendant appeals.

While we have no power to reverse the decree of divorce, we may, as we are asked to do, review the correctness of the decree for the purpose of determining whether or not alimony was properly awarded. Caudill v. Caudill, 172 Ky. 460, 189 S. W. 431. It would serve no good purpose to detail the evidence. The case turns on the credibility of the witnesses. Since the chancellor was on the ground and knew the parties and their witnesses, he was in a better position than we are to determine what effect should be given to the testimony, and after a careful consideration of the testimony, we see no reason for disturbing his finding.

Defendant’s testimony as to how much property he had was very evasive. It is certain that he had at least $2,000.00, and probably several hundred dollars in excess of that. In addition to this, it was shown that he was a *316railway mail clerk and received a salary of $1,500.00 a year. Under these circumstances, alimony in the sum of $2,000.00 was not excessive.

Judgment affirmed.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-921.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NUCLEAR SAFETY 

 Arrangement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the SLOVAK REPUBLIC 

Signed at Vienna 

September 21, 2010 

with 

Addenda 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
SLOVAK REPUBLIC 

Nuclear Safety 

 Arrangement signed at Vienna 

 September 21, 2010; 

 Entered into force September 21, 2010. 

 With addenda. 

 









NOTE: It is noted that in the right signature block, "REGULATOR" should be "REGULATORY".





NOTE: It is noted that in the last line of the third paragraph on this page, the date reference should be "26. septembra 2005".
§ 176.3 Unacceptable hazardous materials shipments. ( a ) A carrier may not transport by vessel any shipment of a hazardous material that is not prepared for transportation in accordance with parts 172 and 173 of this subchapter, or as authorized by subpart C of part 171 of this subchapter.
( b ) A carrier may not transport by vessel any explosive or explosive composition described in § 173.54 of this subchapter.
[Amdt. 176-1, 41 FR 16110, Apr. 15, 1976, as amended by Amdt. 176-30, 55 FR 52688, Dec. 21, 1990; 74 FR 2268, Jan. 14, 2009]
#### The People of the State of New York *v.*George F. Bachman and others.

—> Appeal dismissed. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 138 / Thursday, July 19, 2007 / Presidential Documents 39725 

Presidential Determination No. 2007–27 of July 12, 2007 

Waiver of Limitation on Obligation and Expenditure of 

$642.5 Million in Fiscal Year 2007 Economic Support Funds 

for Iraq 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution 

and the laws of the United States, including section 1314(c)(2) of the U.S. 

Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 

Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110–28)(the ‘‘Act’’), I hereby waive 

the requirements of section 1314(c)(1) for $642.5 million of Fiscal Year 

2007 Economic Support Funds for Iraq and direct you to submit to the 

Congress this determination along with the certification in accordance with 

section 1314(c)(2) of the Act. 

You are hereby directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, July 12, 2007. 

[FR Doc. 07–3551 

Filed 7–18–07; 8:57 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICESGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
Order entered May 28, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 01253 - CV G.T., L.T. INDIVIDUALLY AND A/N /F OF THE MINOR O.T. , ET AL., Appellant s V. DARIUS MCCLINTON - HUNTER, Appellee On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199 - 01692 - 2013 

### O RDER W e GRANT the May 27, 2014 extension motions filed by appellants G.T., L.T., Individually and as Next Friend of O.T., and appellants J.C. and S.C., Individually and as Next Fri end of A.C. We ORDER appellants’ reply briefs be filed no later than June 16, 2014.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending November 13, 2010

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|IBERIABANK        | * 18C          | IBERIABANK, Lafayette, Louisiana, to merge with IBERIABANK-Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas (currently IBERIABANK, fsb), upon its conversion to a state chartered bank, upon its conversion to a state chartered bank. | Newspaper:12/06/2010Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 12/06/2010    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us