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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      31,363,471
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         664,181
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 82,783,786
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    344,220,505
<ALLOWANCE>                                (2,842,989)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             491,327,653
<DEPOSITS>                                 441,792,833
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,689,446
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,876,446
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    36,230,101
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,739,057
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             491,327,653
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             25,533,732
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,380,970
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               293,025
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            29,207,727
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           8,647,385
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             366,826
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       20,193,516
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,665,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             284,939
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             17,593,889
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,987,532
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   4,987,532
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,239,114
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.420
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.400
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.97
<LOANS-NON>                                  4,179,657
<LOANS-PAST>                                   131,871
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             3,554,641
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,329,988
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                1,303,964
<RECOVERIES>                                   151,966
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,842,990
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,842,990
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2017239EN.01001802.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/18

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association française des entreprises v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

(Case C-365/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Directive 2011/96/EU - Prevention of double taxation - Contribution of 3 % in addition to corporation tax))

(2017/C 239/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP), Axa SA, Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin SCA, Danone SA, ENGIE SA, formerly GDF Suez, Eutelsat Communications SA, LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SE, Orange SA, Sanofi SA, Suez Environnement Company SA, Technip SA, Total SA, Vivendi SA, Eurazeo SA, Safran SA, Scor SE, Unibail-Rodamco SE, Zodiac Aerospace SA

Applicants:

Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2014/86/EU of 8 July 2014, must be interpreted as precluding a tax measure laid down by the Member State of a parent company, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, providing for the levy of a tax when the parent company distributes dividends and the basis of assessment of which tax is the amounts of the dividends distributed, including those coming from that company’s non-resident subsidiaries.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,647,609
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  495,991
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (150,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    958,444
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,483,007
<PP&E>                                         326,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                (90,848)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,864,706
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,078,041
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,188,414
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,475,159)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,864,706
<SALES>                                      2,976,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,976,283
<CGS>                                        2,803,005
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,066,645
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               397,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,252,174)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,252,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,252,174)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)


</TABLE>
# C_2020137EN.01004201.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/42

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Danemark) — BEI ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-682/16) (1)

(2020/C 137/58)

Language of the case: Danish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7207

RAYMOND AIGBEKAEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. HOMEWOOD SUITES BY HILTON; ALAN MANANDAHAR , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , Chief District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 02167

- JKB )

Submitted : March 26, 2021 Decided: April 2, 2021

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Raymond Idemudia Aigbekaen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Raymond Aigbekaen appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). On appeal, we confine our review
to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Aigbekaen ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s d isposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conte ntions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KATHY and FREDERICK

ABERCROMBIE

:

:

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4235

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04235-CMR Document 8 Filed 09/16/2002 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 14

                               RTG VENTURES, INC.

                                 CODE OF ETHICS

                                       FOR

       CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, CHIEF ACCOUNTING
                  OFFICER OR CONTROLLER AND PERSONS PERFORMING
                                SIMILAR FUNCTIONS

GENERAL PHILOSOPHY

The honesty, integrity and sound judgment of RTG Ventures, Inc.'s ("RTGV" or the
"Company") Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer or Controller and
persons performing similar functions (collectively the "Principal Officers") is
fundamental to our reputation and success. The professional and ethical conduct
of the Principal Officers is essential to the proper functioning and success of
RTGV.

APPLICABILITY

This Code of Ethics shall apply to RTGV's Principal Officers.

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

To the best of their knowledge and ability, the Principal Officers shall:

o     act with honesty and integrity, including the ethical handling of actual
      or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional
      relationships;

o     provide full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in
      reports and documents that RTGV files with, or submits to, the Securities
      and Exchange Commission ("Commission") and in other public communications
      made by RTGV;

o     comply with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations;

o     promote the prompt internal reporting of violations of this Code of Ethics
      to RTGV's board of directors and outside legal counsel;

o     respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of
      employment;

o     maintain the skills necessary and relevant to RTGV's needs; and

o     proactively promote ethical and honest behavior among employees of RTGV
      and its subsidiaries.

All Principal Officers are expected to adhere to the RTGV Code of Ethics. Any
violation of this Code of Ethics will be subject to appropriate discipline, up
to and including dismissal from the Company and prosecution under the law. The
board of directors shall have responsibility for administration of this Code of
Ethics and shall have the sole and absolute discretionary authority to approve
any deviation or waiver from this Code of Ethics for Principal Officers. In the
event that a waiver of, modification of and/or change to this Code of Ethics is
approved and granted, then the notice of the waiver, modification, and/or change
shall be disclosed as may be required by SEC rules or the rules of any exchange
on which the securities of the Company are then trading.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Nevada ClassicThoroughbreds, Inc.pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002regarding Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended June 30, 2018**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of Nevada Classic Thoroughbreds, Inc., a Nevada corporation(the "Company"), does hereby certify that, based upon his knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,2018 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

> 
Dated: September 30, 2018

By: /s/ Brad Brimhall 

 

________________________________________

 

Brad Brimhall   Principal Financial Officer  Chief Accounting Officer/Acting Chief Financial Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Sampling and analytical methodsof the National Status and Trends Program national benthic surveillance andmussel watch projects, 1984-1992**
 
Volumes: 01020304
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.13/2:NOS ORCA 71
Item Number:0208-C-05 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000821439
 
February 13, 2020
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (UNAUDITED) 208 

Tax Assessments 

The government is authorized and required to make inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes that have not 

been duly paid. Unpaid assessments result from taxpayers filing returns without sufficient payment, as well as enforcement 

programs such as examination, under-reporter, substitute for return, and combined annual wage reporting. Under federal 

accounting standards, unpaid assessments are categorized as taxes receivable if taxpayers agree or a court has determined the 

assessments are owed. If neither of these conditions are met, the unpaid assessments are categorized as compliance 

assessments. Assessments with little or no future collection potential are called write-offs. Although compliance assessments 

and write-offs are not considered receivables under federal accounting standards, they represent legally enforceable claims of 

the government. There is, however, a significant difference in the collection potential between compliance assessments and 

receivables. 

Compliance assessments and pre-assessment work in process are $77.8 billion and $67.5 billion for fiscal years 2019 

and 2018, respectively. The amount of allowance for uncollectible amounts pertaining to compliance assessments cannot be 

reasonably estimated, and thus the net realizable value of the pre-assessment work-in-process cannot be determined. The 

amount of assessments that entities have statutory authority to collect at the end of the period but that have been written off

and excluded from accounts receivable are $106.0 billion and $115.0 billion for fiscal years 2019 and 2018, respectively.
No. 51325.

#### Protest 47361-K of Morris Friedman (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to’ bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) Ip accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 49933.

#### Protests 29870-K, etc., of I. Fujimoto et al. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated and agreed that the merchandise in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Mutual Supply Co.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 136, C. D. 842). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 775 as modified by T. D. 48075. The protests were sustained to this extent.
# C_2017213EN.01001101.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’

(Case C-13/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 7(f) - Personal data - Conditions for the lawful processing of personal data - Concept of ‘necessity for the realisation of the legitimate interests of a third party’ - Request for disclosure of personal data of a person responsible for a road accident in order to exercise a legal claim - Obligation on the controller to grant such a request - No such obligation))

(2017/C 213/10)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde

Applicant:

Defendant: Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as not imposing the obligation to disclose personal data to a third party in order to enable him to bring an action for damages before a civil court for harm caused by the person concerned by the protection of that data. However, Article 7(f) of that directive does not preclude such disclosure on the basis of national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

1

---
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion to 1

Dismiss was filed February 22, 2006.

On February 22, 2006 Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to

2

Defendant Samuel Wiggin’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was

filed.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEVIN L. MAULE, )

 ) Civil Action

Plaintiff ) No. 04-CV-05933

 )

vs. )

 )

SUSQUEHANNA REGIONAL POLICE )

COMMISSION; )

EAST DONEGAL TOWNSHIP; )

EAST DONEGAL TOWNSHIP )

SUPERVISORS; )

MARIETTA BOROUGH; )

MARIETTA BOROUGH COUNCIL; )

CONOY TOWNSHIP; )

CONOY TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS; )

OLIVER C. OVERLANDER, II; )

ROBERT STRICKLAND; )

ALLEN ESBENSHADE; )

DENNIS DRAGER; )

LORI NAU; )

STEPHEN MOHR and )

SAMUEL WIGGINS, )

 )

Defendants )

O R D E R

NOW, this 27 day of September, 2007, upon th

consideration of Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Complaint,

which motion was filed on behalf of all defendants except Samuel

Wiggins on February 8, 2006; 1 upon consideration of Defendant

Samuel Wiggin’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,

which motion was filed February 8, 2006; upon consideration of 2

Defendants’ Amended Joint Motion to Dismiss Complaint, which

Case 2:04-cv-05933-JKG Document 39 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 3
On October 16, 2006 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ 3

Amended Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Further Response in Opposition to

the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss was filed.

-iimotion was filed September 29, 2006; upon consideration of the 3

briefs of the parties; and for the reasons expressed in the

accompanying Opinion, 

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motions to dismiss are

granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Count I of plaintiffs’

Amended Complaint relating to claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging violations of procedural and substantive due process

under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

and for First Amendment retaliation is dismissed pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining claims 

(Counts II through IV) against all defendants are dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to bring

these claims in Pennsylvania state court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint filed January 25, 2006 is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike

Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Further

Response in Opposition to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss is

dismissed as moot.

Case 2:04-cv-05933-JKG Document 39 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 3
-iiiIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall

mark this case closed for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James Knoll Gardner 

James Knoll Gardner

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-05933-JKG Document 39 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3
Case No. 14,349.

#### UNION BANK v. COOK et al.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 218.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1820.

Notes — Alteration of Date.

An alteration of the date of a promissory note, whereby the time of payment is prolonged, does not make the note void as to the maker.

[See Bank of Washington v. Way, Case No. 957.]

This was an action against the makers of a promissory note, payable to Francis Adams or order, dated 14th August, 1818. The defendants [Cook & Clare] offered evidence that the date was altered by the payee, from the 13th to the 14th of August, to make it fall due on the discount day of the Union Bank; and contended that the note was thereby made void.

Mr. Swann, for plaintiff.

Mr. Taylor, for defendant

But

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent,)

was of opinion that the alteration, prolonging the time of payment, be-' ing for the benefit of the' defendants, did not make the note void as to them.
Before the Third Division,

August 18, 1948

No. 52505.

protest 68209-K (New York).

#### Fergus Motors *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on entry 817814. The protest Was sustained to this extent.