alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Part 2 Fiscal Y

SUPPLEMENT 

USSGL ACCOUNT ATTRIBUTE DEFINITION REPORT 

Bulletin No. 2016-02 IV ADR - 1 IRC Han

Attribute 

Name 

Attribute 

Short 

Name 

Attribute 

Definition Domain 

System 

Characters Referen

GTAS Fund Type Code Fund Type A classification established in law that describes an OMB 

account's relationship to the Government, and the source of the receipts that the account is provided. The first digit (and sometimes second digit, as well) of the Treasury Account Main Code is also used to designate General Fund category (ITFM 2-1500). 

CF - Clearing Account (F3500-F3885) DF - Deposit Fund. (6000-6949, 6999-

6999)DD – DoD CIHO (6950-6954) XX – Non-Deposit fund (6955-6998)EC - Consolidated Working Fund (3900-3959) EG - General Fund (0000-3899) EM - Management Fund (3960-3999)EP - Public Enterprise Revolving Funds (4000-4499) ER - Intragovernmental Revolving Funds (4500-4999) ES - Special Fund (5000-5999) ET - Trust Nonrevolving Fund (8000-8399 & 8500-8999) GA - General Fund Authority MR - Miscellaneous Unavailable Receipts (9500-9550) TR - Trust 

2/A FAST Book 
Part 2 Fiscal Y

SUPPLEMENT 

USSGL ACCOUNT ATTRIBUTE DEFINITION REPORT 

Bulletin No. 2016-02 IV ADR - 2 IRC Han

Attribute 

Name 

Attribute 

Short 

Name 

Attribute 

Definition Domain 

System 

Characters Referen

Revolving Fund (8400-8499) UG - Unavailable General Fund Receipt (0000-3499) US - Unavailable Special Fund Receipt (5000-5999) UT - Unavailable Trust NonRevolving Fund Receipt (8000-8399 & 8500-8999)

The DD domain value will be added to USSGL accounts 113500 Funds Held Outside of Treasury, and 298500 LEntity Assets Not Reported on the Statement of Custodial Activity.
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB     Document 8-2      Filed 02/23/2004     Page 1 of 1
# C_2017256EN.01002701.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — Rare Hospitality International v EUIPO (LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE)

(Case T-856/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment and the principle of sound administration))

(2017/C 256/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rare Hospitality International, Inc. (Orlando, Florida, United States) (represented by: I. Lazaro Betancor, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 (Case R 2149/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of word sign LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rare Hospitality International, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rare Hospitality International, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

1

---
Exhibit 99.1

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Kim S. Price, Chief Executive Officer and Gary F. Hoskins, Chief Financial
Officer of Citizens South Banking Corporation (the "Company") each certify in
his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 and that to the best of
his knowledge:

      (1)   the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


                                 Citizens South Banking Corporation


Date: August 13, 2002            By:  /s/ Kim S. Price
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Kim S. Price
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 13, 2002            By:  /s/ Gary F. Hoskins
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Gary F. Hoskins
                                      Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
                                      Officer and Treasurer
Before the First Division,

October 2, 1946

No. 51327.

#### Protests 46094-K, etc., of Y. Akiyana et al. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Amendment No. 3 to Advisory Agreement



 Exhibit 10.39 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 TO THE 
 ADVISORY AGREEMENT 
 This amendment no. 3 to the Advisory Agreement dated as of November 8, 2007 (the
“Advisory Agreement”) between KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and KBS Capital Advisors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Advisor”), is entered as of
May 9, 2008 (the “Amendment”). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Advisory Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, upon the terms set forth in this Amendment, the Advisor has agreed to amend and restate Article 16 of the Advisory Agreement and advance funds to the Company upon the terms set forth below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree that Article 16
of the Advisory Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 ADVANCE 
 Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 9 of this Agreement to the contrary, the Advisor hereby agrees to advance funds (the “Advance”)
to the Company equal to the amount by which the cumulative amount of distributions declared by the Company from January 1, 2006 through the period ending July 31, 2008 exceeds the amount of the Company’s funds from operations (as
defined by NAREIT) from January 1, 2006 through July 31, 2008. Advisor further agrees that the Company will only be obligated to reimburse the Advisor for the Advance if and to the extent that the Company’s cumulative funds from
operations for the period commencing January 1, 2006 through the date of any such reimbursement exceed the lesser of (i) the cumulative amount of any distributions declared and payable to the Company’s Stockholders as of the date of
such reimbursement or (ii) an amount that is equal to a 7.0% cumulative, non-compounded, annual return on Invested Capital for the Company’s Stockholders for the period from July 18, 2006 through the date of such reimbursement.
Advisor understands and agrees that no interest shall accrue on the Advance being made under this Agreement. 
 Signature page follows.








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above
written. 
  

									
	KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
		
	    By:	 	 /s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.

		 	Charles J. Schreiber, Jr., Chief Executive Officer
	
	KBS CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC
		
	    By:	 	Schreiber Real Estate Investments, L.P., a Manager
				
		 		 	By:	 	Schreiber Investments, LLC, as general partner
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.

		 		 		 		 	Charles J. Schreiber, Jr., Manager
No. 56997.

#### Gaillet & Hartig Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 191335-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cellophane sheets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Coughlin Mfg. Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 40, C. D. 1345) and *Gillette Safety Razor Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 44, C. D. 1346), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26621-26622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DoD-2013-OS-0017]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 6, 
2013.
    Title, Associated Forms and OMB Number: Vietnam War Commemoration 
After-Action Report; DD Form 2957; OMB Number 0704-TBD.
    Type of Request: New.
    Number of Respondents: 5,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 5,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 1,250 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
to notify the United States of America Vietnam War Commemoration's 
Commemorative Partner Program of Commemorative Partner's results of 
their event.
    Affected Public: Business of other for-profit; Not-for-profit 
institutions; Federal Government; State, local or tribal government.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

[[Page 26622]]

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD Information Management 
Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, 
VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: April 30, 2013.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2013-10763 Filed 5-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 5, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128060 & (83)(84) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JOHN G. MULARONI, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 128060 

 COA: 251282 
 Wayne CC: 01-124007-CK

GERMANO MULARONI, 

GERMANO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, 

FRENCHMAN’S LANDING, LLC, 

Defendants-Appellees/ 

Cross-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, 

and 

GERMANO MULARONI FAMILY TRUST, 

Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the applications for leave to appeal as crossappellants are considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to 

appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The agreement 

provides, and defendants conceded below and in this Court, that plaintiff’s “initial 

interest” in the “property and/or the limited liability company” that the parties 

contemplated forming was 50 percent of the difference between the purchase price 

(together with the costs of obtaining rezoning, with interest at 8 percent) and the value of 

the property as rezoned. We REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to 

determine (1) upon retrial, 50 percent of the net increase in the vacant property’s value as 

a result of the rezoning, in accordance with the formula in paragraph 3 of the agreement 

of August 30, 1996; and (2) whether the trust entity that is a member of the limited 

liability corporation that holds title to the subject property is the trust entity named as a 

defendant in this action and, if not, to correct any misnomer. 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

If plaintiff accepts remittitur in the amount of $841,000, the amount that 

defendants concede would be due to plaintiff if he is entitled to recover 50 percent of the 

property’s net increase in value after rezoning, the circuit court may deny retrial on that 

issue. 

In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal and the applications for 

leave to appeal as cross-appellants are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

p0329 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

April 5, 2006 

Clerk
Before the Second Division,

April 8, 1958

No. 61783.

#### Great Lakes Paper Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 264629-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Bao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *John J. Coates Co. et al.*v. *United States*(44 C. C. P. A. 97, C. A. D. 643), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 1 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 2 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 3 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 4 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 5 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 6 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 7 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 8 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 9 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 10 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 11 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 12 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 13 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 14 of 15

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER   Document 118-1   Filed 07/28/15   Page 15 of 15
Exhibit 10


Exhibit 10.2




CONSULTING AGREEMENT

This Agreement is dated 25 February 2008 by and between Aegean Earth S.A. (“First Party”) located at Ave Syngrou, 312 Kallithea, 176 73 GR and Panayotis Goritsas of Issiodou, 32, Athens, 106 74 GR (“Second Party”), herein collectively referred to as the “Parties”.

WHEREAS, First Party desires to retain Second Party to assist and advise it in the completion of the acquisition of a business in Greece;

WHEREAS, Second Party is willing to assist First Party in said acquisition effort.

NOW THEREFORE,  the Parties hereto agree as follows:

1.

 First Party shall identify industry sectors that it wishes to pursue an acquisition program.

2.

Second Party agrees to assist First Party in any acquisitions that are specified except that Second Party specifically shall refrain from providing any consulting advice concerning his previous employer.

3.

Second Party agrees to provide to First Party alternative acquisitions for the program of the First Party.

This agreement may be terminated by either party giving notice to the other at the above address with immediate effect.

Accepted and Agreed on the above date




AEGEAN EARTH S.A.

/s/ Joseph B. Clancy

Managing Director




Panayotis Goritsas

/s/ Panayotis Goritsas
163 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Note 26. Subsequent Events

Disaster Relief

In September and October 2018, Hurricanes Florence and Michael struck the continental United States. While the full

future effect of these disasters is still unknown, there will be an impact on some federal government entities as a result of

assisting these areas as they strive to recover. The fiscal year 2018 Financial Report did not reflect any liabilities for

additional disaster relief amounts that may be authorized by legislation enacted after September 30, 2018. The SBA has

begun to increase its rate of administrative spending as it conducts its disaster response. This spending is consistent with

SBA’s experience in responding to prior disasters. The SBA could experience future variations in the performance of existing

disaster and business loan portfolios as businesses in the affected areas strive to recover.

Statutory Debt Limit

As of September 30, 2018, debt subject to the statutory debt limit was $21,474.8 billion. However, per P.L. 115-56, the

statutory debt limit was temporarily suspended through March 1, 2019. Effective March 2, 2019, the statutory debt limit was

set at $21,987.7 billion and on March 4, 2019, the Secretary of the Treasury notified the Congress that the statutory debt limit

would be reached on or after that day. When delays in raising the debt limit occur, Treasury often must deviate from its

normal cash and debt management operations and take a number of what it calls “extraordinary measures” to meet the

government’s obligations as they come due without exceeding the debt limit. Treasury began taking these extraordinary

actions on March 4, 2019.
No. 54610.

#### The Singer Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

protests 140207-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rough unmachined castings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Singer Manufacturing Company*(37 C. C. P. A. 104, C. A. D. 427), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20626

Summary Calendar

EARL MCBRIDE, JR.,

Petitioner–Appellant,

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent–Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CV-2012

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Earl McBride, Jr., Texas inmate # 315371, was convicted of 

capital murder in 1980 and sentenced to a life term of imprisonment. In 2016, 

McBride filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition asserting constitutional claims based 

on his factual allegation that he had been paroled in 2014 but his parole was 

improperly revoked before he was released. He specifically denied that he was 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 14, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20626 Document: 00514470998 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2018
No. 16-20626

2

challenging any discretionary decision to grant or deny him parole. Without 

ordering a response and without the benefit of any state court records, the

district court dismissed McBride’s claims as a meritless challenge to a denial 

of parole. This court granted a certificate of appealability as to “whether the 

district court correctly dismissed [McBride’s] constitutional claims as 

predicated on a denial, rather than a revocation, of parole.”

Denial of parole and revocation of parole are subject to different 

constitutional standards. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482-84 (1972); 

Jennings v. Owens, 602 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir. 2010); Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 

29, 32 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not analyze McBride’s claims 

under the standard applicable to revocation of parole and the limited record 

does not conclusively establish McBride’s parole status. Merits briefing has

not clarified matters. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court 

misconstrued the basis of McBride’s constitutional claims and prematurely 

dismissed his § 2254 petition. See Kiser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 

1999). We therefore vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. McBride’s motion for appointment of counsel, 

construed as a motion for reconsideration of the denial of the original motion 

to appoint counsel, is denied without prejudice to reurging the motion on 

remand.

JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED; MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 Case: 16-20626 Document: 00514470998 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2018
(Reap. Dec. 10364)

Entry No. 2034, etc.

#### Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided November 7, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley é Carter*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement ^numerated in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> *439IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and. between counsel for tbe parties hereto that tbe merchandise which is the subject of the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule B, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of phonograph records exported from Mexico after October 1, 1960.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that phonograph records are not on the list of articles published in T.D. 54521 and are subject to appraisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927 — 84th Congress 2nd Session).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing reap-praisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the prices shown on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

> -IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for reap-praisement listed in Schedule B are hereby submitted on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement,of the phonograph records in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the prices shown in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made of part hereof, for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.