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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              2,194,317
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       7,054,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                         (277,341)
<INVENTORY>                                         3,752,773
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   12,820,089
<PP&E>                                             10,495,539
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (1,005,342)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     33,251,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              23,439,095
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               4,882,076
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                              272,711
<OTHER-SE>                                         (6,994,114)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       33,251,229
<SALES>                                            19,745,578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   19,745,578
<CGS>                                              16,613,213
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      21,845,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    1,985,435
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  1,901,623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (4,063,632)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (4,063,632)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (4,063,632)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (.33)


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD ALLEN FABEL, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-41RSL

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN

LIMINE AND FOR DEFENDANTS’

RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Based upon the government’s motion,docket #426, and the records and files

herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the Government’s Responses to Defendants’ Motions

in Limine are due on January 29, 2007. The Motions should be noted for consideration

on that date.

Based upon defendants’ motion, docket #428, and the records and files herein, it is

hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Responses to the Government’s Motions in Limine

are due on January 29, 2007. The Motions should be noted for consideration on that

date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 24th day of January, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 432 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 1
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 2, 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14
- 0010 4
- CR NO. 14

- 14
- 00105
- CR NO. 14

- 14
- 00106
- CR

GEORGE WILHELM VOGEL , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13

- 04
- 04450 CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals his convictions for three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child

. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal s are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the recor d and demonstrating why there are no arguable2 grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 , 811

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant received the record on July 30, 2014, and received two extensions of time to file a pro se
response. As of this date, pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal s are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brow n, and Wise. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2( b).
# Official Journal C 136/28 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 136 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6028 April 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 136

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6028 April 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2017/C 136/01 | Annual progress report on the implementation of the European Union strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (2016) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2017/C 136/01

Annual progress report on the implementation of the European Union strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (2016)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

BERNARD JASPERS,

Petitioner,

v.

KENNETH QUINN,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5049 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS

PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Magistrate Judge recommends this habeas corpus petition be dismissed without

prejudice. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the Respondent answered this petition and argued it

was time barred and in addition, contained unexhausted but procedurally barred claims. Petitioner

then filed a motion to dismiss his petition without prejudice. Respondent has not responded and it

appears no prejudice will be suffered by grant of the motion to dismiss.

The Court, having reviewed the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Respondent’s answer, the

Petitioner’s motion to dismiss and the Report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelly

Arnold, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER;

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

Case 3:06-cv-05049-FDB Document 16 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, counsel for

Respondent and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 31st day of July, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05049-FDB Document 16 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2
# C_2021182EN.01006301.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/63

---

Action brought on 15 March 2021 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-150/21)

(2021/C 182/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd (Hangzhou, China), Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd (Rayong, Thailand), Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd (Rayong) (represented by: G. Coppo and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2162 of 18 December 2020 initiating an investigation concerning possible circumvention of the antidumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, and making such imports subject to registration, insofar as it concerns the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2162 of 18 December 2020 initiating an investigation concerning possible circumvention of the antidumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, and making such imports subject to registration, insofar as it concerns the applicants;

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in initiating the Investigation in absence of sufficient evidence within the meaning of Article 13(3) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           Section 1350 Certification

         I, James Bright, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Cape Cod Aquaculture Corp. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended April 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Cape Cod Aquaculture Corp.

June 8, 2009                   By: /s/ James Bright
                                   ----------------
                                   James Bright, Principal Executive Officer and
                                   Principal Financial Officer

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Cape Cod Aquaculture Corp. and will be retained by Cape Cod
Aquaculture Corp. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### Kerri L. Marshall, Respondent, v August Nappi, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 471]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated January 20, 1994, as granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment as to the causes of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Underwood at the Supreme Court. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.
From: christiandance@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:22:50 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Karen Woolard

Collinsville, IL 62234
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 116 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 116

  Designating November 15, 1997, and November 15, 1998, as ``America 
                            Recycles Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 1997

   Mr. Levin (for himself and Mr. Jeffords) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Designating November 15, 1997, and November 15, 1998, as ``America 
                            Recycles Day''.

Whereas citizens in the United States generate approximately 208,000,000 tons of 
        municipal solid waste a year or 4.3 pounds per person per day;
Whereas the average worker generated between 120 and 150 pounds of recoverable 
        white office paper a year;
Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency recently estimated that the 
        recycling rate in the United States has reached 27 percent;
Whereas making products from recycled materials allows us to get the most use of 
        every tree, every gallon of oil, every pound of mineral, every drop of 
        water, and every kilowatt of energy that goes into products we buy;
Whereas manufacturing from recycled materials creates less waste and fewer 
        emissions;
Whereas recycling saves energy, reducing the need to deplete nonrenewable energy 
        resources;
Whereas it is estimated that 9 jobs are created for every 15,000 tons of solid 
        waste recycled into a new product;
Whereas recycling is completed only when recovered materials are returned to the 
        retailer as new products, and then purchased by consumers;
Whereas buying recycled products conserves resources and energy, reduces waste 
        and pollution, and creates jobs;
Whereas more than 4,500 recycled products are available to consumers;
Whereas we have a two-way, use and reuse system of recycling and buying 
        recycling; and
Whereas Americans support recycling, but need a regular reminder of the 
        importance of buying recycled content products and the availability of 
        recycled content products and instructions on how to recycle: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates November 15, 1997, and November 15, 1998, as 
        ``America Recycles Day''; and
            (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
        calling on the people of the United States to observe ``America 
        Recycles Day'' with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

          - [Docket No. AS23-15]

# AGENCY:

Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

# ACTION:

Notice of special closed meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with section 1104(b) of title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) met for a Special Closed Meeting on this date.

*Location:*                         Virtual meeting via Webex.                    

*Date:*                         October 4, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         11:15 a.m. ET.                    

## Action and Discussion Item

Personnel Matter.

The ASC convened a Special Closed Meeting to discuss a personnel matter. No action was taken by the ASC.

James R. Park,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2023-22528 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6700-01-P
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

JAMES ROBERT JACKSON,

Defendant. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-218M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged:

Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Date of Detention Hearing: May 8, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth,

finds the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), there is a rebuttable presumption that

defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community based on the nature of the pending

charges.

(2) Defendant has multiple failures to appear in court and one escape charge.

(3) Defendant’s criminal background history reveals serious and substantial

charges.

Case 2:06-mj-00218-JPD Document 8 Filed 05/08/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(4) Defendant has no stable residence.

(5) Defendant has prior substance-abuse problems which appear to be ongoing.

(6) There is evidence that defendant may been involved with witness intimidation.

(7) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will address the risk of flight and the the danger to other persons of the

community posed by defendant.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the

extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in

custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation

with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which

defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal

for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United

States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-mj-00218-JPD Document 8 Filed 05/08/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIANA WATERS,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5828FDB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION RE PLACEMENT

PENDING APPEAL

Defendant-Appellant Briana Waters requests that this Court recommend that she be confined

in a place near the place of appeal in order to assist her counsel in San Francisco with the appeal. 

This Court has already made a recommendation – as requested by Plaintiff at sentencing – that

Waters be placed at FCI-Dublin, California or close to her home in California, if possible. There is

nothing further for this Court to do. This Court is now divested of jurisdiction over this case by the

appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which Court now has jurisdiction over this matter. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: Defendant-Appellant Waters’ Request for

Recommendation to The Attorney General on Placement Pending Appeal [Dkt # 464] is DENIED. 

DATED this 6th day of October 2008.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE