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

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          15,343
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             202
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     62,606
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          32,934
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            33,473
<LOANS>                                        251,667
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 379,605
<DEPOSITS>                                     303,262
<SHORT-TERM>                                     9,140
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,508
<LONG-TERM>                                     27,717
<COMMON>                                        11,204
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,774
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 379,605
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,083
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,743
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    38
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                20,864
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,296
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,981
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,883
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      365
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  66
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,517
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,325
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,325
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.48
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.25
<LOANS-NON>                                        827
<LOANS-PAST>                                        11
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   798
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,638
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      191
<RECOVERIES>                                       102
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,914
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,103
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,811
        

</TABLE>
#### Ambrose J. Agate, *Appellant, v.*Ann Eliza Agate, *Respondent.—*

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event; issues, ordered to be framed and submitted to a jury. Opinion by

Brady, J.
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: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending July 13, 2013

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## 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
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, July 10, 1995 (91), Para 91.37 Subpoena]
[Page 1102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.91.37  subpoena

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, laid before the House a 
communication, which was read as follows:

                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, June 30, 1995.  
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant 
     to Rule L (5) of the Rules of the House that my office has 
     received a subpoena for testimony and documents concerning 
     constituent casework. The subpoena was issued by the Superior 
     Court of New Jersey in Morris County.
       After consultation with the General Counsel, I have 
     determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent 
     with the privileges and precedents of the House.
           Sincerely,
                                             Christopher H. Smith,
                                             Member of Congress.
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 107

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 107 appear at 67 FR 61011, Sept. 27, 2002, 70 FR 56089, Sept. 23, 2005, and 70 FR 73159, Dec. 9, 2005.

#### § 107.338 Prohibition of hazardous materials operations.

As provided for in subpart E of part 109 of this subchapter, a person who fails to pay a civil penalty in accordance with agreed upon installments or in full within prescribed time lines, is prohibited from conducting hazardous materials operations and shall immediately cease all hazardous materials operations.

[79 FR 46199, Aug. 7, 2014]
Notes from Meeting with CVS

Attended by:

CVS Staff: Pat Perry

Troutman Sanders: Greg Blount and John Johnson

EPA Staff: Kristin Fitzgerald

Date: September 18, 2013

EPA met with a representative of CVS and their outside legal counsel from Troutman Sanders. 

CVS inquired about the progress of the pharmaceuticals proposed rule. They reiterated the 

following high priority concerns that they hope the proposed rule will address:

1. Nicotine gum, patches and lozenges causing their retail stores to notify and operate 

as LQGs (approximately 3300 stores), stores that otherwise would be CESQGs

2. National consistency among the state programs for pharmaceutical management; even 

recognizing that the only way to achieve national consistency is to propose a rule that 

is considered more stringent rule than current regulations.

CVS also inquired about the status of the Retail NODA. They indicated that they have already

prepared data that they are looking forward to submitting the data when the NODA is published. 

They indicated that their peer institutions also have prepared data to submit in response to the 

NODA.
§ 1549.109 Security Directives and Information Circulars. ( a ) TSA may issue an Information Circular to notify certified cargo screening facilities of security concerns.
( b ) When TSA determines that additional security measures are necessary to respond to a threat assessment, or to a specific threat against civil aviation, TSA issues a Security Directive setting forth mandatory measures. ( 1 ) Each certified cargo screening facility must comply with each Security Directive that TSA issues to it, within the time prescribed in the Security Directive for compliance.
( 2 ) Each certified cargo screening facility that receives a Security Directive must comply with the following: ( i ) Within the time prescribed in the Security Directive, acknowledge in writing receipt of the Security Directive to TSA.
( ii ) Within the time prescribed in the Security Directive, specify the method by which the measures in the Security Directive have been implemented (or will be implemented, if the Security Directive is not yet effective).
( 3 ) In the event that the certified cargo screening facility is unable to implement the measures in the Security Directive, the certified cargo screening facility must submit proposed alternative measures and the basis for submitting the alternative measures to TSA for approval. ( i ) The certified cargo screening facility must submit the proposed alternative measures within the time prescribed in the Security Directive.
( ii ) The certified cargo screening facility must implement any alternative measures approved by TSA.
( 4 ) Each certified cargo screening facility that receives a Security Directive may comment on it by submitting data, views, or arguments in writing to TSA. ( i ) TSA may amend the Security Directive based on comments received.
( ii ) Submission of a comment does not delay the effective date of the Security Directive.
( 5 ) Each certified cargo screening facility that receives a Security Directive or Information Circular, and each person who receives information from a Security Directive or Information Circular, must— ( i ) Restrict the availability of the Security Directive or Information Circular, and information contained in either document, to those persons with a need-to-know; and
( ii ) Refuse to release the Security Directive or Information Circular, and information contained in either document, to persons other than those with a need-to-know without the prior written consent of TSA.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00347- CV

In re Erasm o Gar cia

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator Erasmo Gar cia filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for temporar y relief pending dispositi on of hi s mandamus petit ion. We g ranted a temporar y stay and reque sted a response from rea l parties in interest. Having revie wed the petition, rec ord, and filings by rela tor and rea l pa

rties in inter est, we dissolve our temporar y stay and deny the petition f or writ of manda mus. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a)
.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield Filed: June 17, 2014
**Map Collections**

----

[Rights and Reproductions]

----

**Greece.**

United States. Central Intelligence Agency.

**CREATED/PUBLISHED** [Washington, D.C. : Central Intelligence Agency, 2010]

**NOTES**"803447AI (G02691) 10-10." 

Another version issued with shaded relief. 

Includes note and location map. 

 Scale 1:5,700,000 ; Lambert conformal conic proj., standard parallels 34�53'N and 41�46'N (E 19�--E 29�/N 42�--N 34�).

**SUBJECTS**Greece--Maps.Maps.Greece.

**MEDIUM**1 map : col. ; 21 x 17 cm.

**CALL NUMBER****G6810** 2010 .U5

**REPOSITORY**Library of Congress Geography and Map Division Washington, D.C. 20540-4650 USA 

**DIGITAL ID****g6810****ct003215** http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/**g6810**.**ct003215**

**PREVIOUS****NEXT****NEW SEARCH**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from Moto Photo Inc's Third
Quarter 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         467,361
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,979,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,429,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,656,950
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,127,902
<PP&E>                                       3,076,644
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,452,129
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,581,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,978,658
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                        77,860
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,113,584
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,581,709
<SALES>                                     26,001,431
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,905,691
<CGS>                                       13,884,404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,779,557
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,694,689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               382,812
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             371,806
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,029,119
<INCOME-TAX>                                   361,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            668,119
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   668,119
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
#### State *v.*Wilson.

Upon an indictment for breaking and entering and stealing, the prisoner upon conviction may be sentenced under Gr. L., *a.*279, for breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny.

Indictment, for breaking and entering a store, and stealing therefrom one bank bill. The respondent demurred, on the ground that no offence punishable under the Genera] Laws was charged in the indictment, the punishment prescribed by statute (G. L., *c.*279) being for breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny.

*Sulloway*<f *Topliff,*for the defendant.

The indictment charges no crime or offence under the existing statute. Chapter 279 of the General Laws is confined entirely to the intent. The statute having made the intent the gist of the offence, the intent must be charged.

*Burns,*solicitor, for the state.

Clark, J.

The indictment is sufficient. An intent to commit larceny is included in the charge of stealing. The charge of breaking and entering and stealing is equivalent to an averment of breaking and entering with intent to steal. *Jones*v. *State,*11 N. H. 269; *State*v. *Moore,*12 N. H. 42; *State*v. *Ayer,*23 N. H. *140301; *Commonwealth*v. Hope, 22 Pick. 1; Wharton Cr. Law 1613; 2 Bishop Cr. Law 115.

*Demurrer overruled.*

Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Exhibit 31.1



I, Kenneth T. Neilson, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hudson United Bancorp;



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. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a- 15(e)and 15d -15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting: and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2004                                                
|                                                                  
|/s/    Kenneth T. Neilson                                         
|                                                                  
|Kenneth T. Neilson Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, May 18, 1995 (69), Para 69.11 Message from the President]
[Page 755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.69.11  message from the president

  A message in writing from the President of the United States was 
communicated to the House by Mr. Edwin Thomas, one of his secretaries.

  The Committee resumed its sitting; and after some further time spent 
therein,
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6681

WILLIAM DEANS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

SHEILA LINDSEY, in official and private capacity; SOUTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS 

TREATMENT PROGRAM, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:07-cv-03247-CMC) 

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 27, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

William Deans, Appellant Pro Se. Janet Carol Brooks, Daniel Roy 

Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

William Deans seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and 

denying Deans’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief. We 

dismiss in part and affirm in part. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period 

is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of 

Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Accord Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 

(2007). Because Deans filed his appeal of the district court’s 

original order more than thirty days after the entry of 

judgment, we deny his appeal of this judgment as untimely. Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). 

Deans’s notice of appeal was timely as to the order 

denying Deans’s Rule 60(b) motion. We find that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Deans’s Rule 60(b) 

motion. See MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 

269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (reviewing the denial of a Rule 60(b) 

motion for abuse of discretion). Therefore, we affirm the 

2 
3 

district court’s denial of Deans’s motion. See Deans v. 

Lindsey, No. 3:07-cv-03247-CMC (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 2009). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
Exhibit 4.18

English Translation for Reference


 


Power
of Attorney


 


I, Lai Fulin, a citizen of the People’s
Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as “China”), with the Chinese ID card number: [Redacted],
am a shareholder of Shenzhen Zhongguan Agricultural Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Zhongguan”),
holding 5% equity interest of Zhongguan. I hereby irrevocably authorize Mr. GUANGLIN LAI to exercise the following rights within
the term of this Power of Attorney:


 


I authorize Mr. GUANGLIN LAI (passport number: [Redacted]) to represent me with full power to exercise any shareholder’s rights, including voting rights, to which I shall
be entitled under the laws of China and the Articles of Association of Zhongguan at shareholders’ meetings of Zhongguan,
including but without limited to execute legal documents in relation to the sale or transfer of all or part of my equity interest
in Zhongguan, and to act as my authorized representative at shareholders’ meetings of Zhongguan to designate and appoint
a general manager of Zhongguan.


 


The above authorization and designation
are conditional upon Mr. GUANGLIN LAI being a director of Agria Brother Biotech (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
“Agria Brother”) and Agria Brother granting its consent to the above authorization and designation. Once Mr.
GUANGLIN LAI leaves Agria Brother or Agria Brother notifies me of the termination of the above authorization and designation, I
will immediately withdraw the authorization and designation made herein, and will designate and authorize any other personnel nominated
by Agria Brother to exercise all my shareholder’s rights, including voting rights, to which I shall be entitled at shareholders’
meetings of Zhongguan.


 


During the validly existing period of Zhongguan,
except for the early termination of the Exclusive Call Option Contract jointly signed by me, Agria Brother and Zhongguan for any
reasons, this Power of Attorney shall remain effective throughout the operating period of Zhongguan from the date hereof.


 


	 	/s/ Lai Fulin
	 	 
	 	May 7, 2013