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

<ARTICLE>          5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      20,466
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               94,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                (2,448)
<INVENTORY>                                 26,793
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           148,268
<PP&E>                                     316,041
<DEPRECIATION>                            (130,776)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             381,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       64,366
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,944
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                 291,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               381,928
<SALES>                                    174,213
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           174,213
<CGS>                                      117,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              117,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               784
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             20,954
<INCOME-TAX>                                 7,014
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         14,241
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                14,241
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .87







</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

1 The findings and recommendations were re-served on petitioner on December 20,

2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL A. WESBECHER, No. CIV S-04-0807-FCD-CMK

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

DANIEL FOY,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, who is no longer in custody, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On December 7, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days.1 Petitioner has

not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-00807-FCD-CMK Document 37 Filed 01/19/06 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

2

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 7, 2005, are adopted in

full;

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and

failure to comply with court orders and rules; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

DATED:January 19, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00807-FCD-CMK Document 37 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 2
**Part 2, Section V: USSGL Crosswalks to Standard External Reports**

This section includes crosswalks for use in fiscal 2018 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with current reporting guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service).

Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information on attributes.

All crosswalks require pre-closing USSGL account balances.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by OMB and Fiscal Service:

Page 1 of 1

# image1.png
EXHIBIT 4.9






                         PLEDGED SHARE AMENDMENT

     This Pledged Share Amendment, dated as of August 15, 1997, is delivered
pursuant to Section 5 of the Pledge Agreement referred to below.  The
undersigned hereby agrees that this Pledged Share Amendment may be attached to
the Pledge Agreement dated as of May 26, 1992, between the undersigned and
Chemical Bank, as Trustee (the "Pledge Agreement"; capitalized terms defined
therein being used herein as therein defined), and that the Pledged Shares
listed on this Pledged Share Amendment shall be deemed to be part of the
Pledged Shares and shall become part of the Pledged Collateral and shall
secure all Senior Obligations as provided in the Pledge Agreement.


                         AMERICAN BANKNOTE CORPORATION


                         By:   S/ Harvey J.  Kesner
                         Name:   Harvey J.  Kesner
                         Title:  Executive Vice President & General Counsel

                                                               Percentage of
                              Stock                            All Capital
                    Class of  Certificate  Par     Number of   Stock
Stock Issuer        Stock     Number       value   Shares      Outstanding

Transaction Network
Plus, Inc.  (American
Banknote Card
Services, Inc.)     Common    10           0.001   4 million    94%


American Banknote
Merchant Services,
Inc.                Common     1           0.01     1000        100%
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40983

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEONARDO MARTINEZ TORRES, also known as Leo Torres, also known as 

Tiger,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-99-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Leonardo Martinez Torres (Torres)

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Torres has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

 

* 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

February 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40983 Document: 00513372414 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2016
No. 14-40983

2

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-40983 Document: 00513372414 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           9,443
<SECURITIES>                                    28,440
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,673
<ALLOWANCES>                                       621
<INVENTORY>                                      7,253
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,349
<PP&E>                                          35,951
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,507
<BONDS>                                            951
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           585
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,275
<SALES>                                        142,004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               142,004
<CGS>                                           81,028
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,028
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   329
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  96
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 49,978
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,884
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,094
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,094
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.30
        


</TABLE>
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/6/2023 1

Propriety of an Advisory Question 

on the Ballot in Washington 

Lamar Company v. Spokane County Board of County 

Commissioners (Fred Van Sickle, E.D. Wash. 2:02-cv-326) 

The district court ruled that it was not improper for a county to put 

on the general-election ballot an advisory question on curtailing 

roadside billboards. 

Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Ballot measure; getting on the 

ballot; enjoining elections; laches; ballot language. 

On September 26, 2002, a billboard company filed a federal complaint in the 

Eastern District of Washington challenging a planned advisory measure for 

Spokane County voters in the November 5 general election on curtailing 

billboards along county roads.1

 The complaint challenged both the propriety 

of an advisory election and existing content regulations for billboards.2 On 

October 1, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.3

 On the 

next day, Judge Fred Van Sickle granted expedited hearing.4

At the October 11 hearing, Judge Van Sickle denied the plaintiff preliminary relief.5

 His October 15 opinion explained that the county had implied 

authority to put an advisory question to voters: “This power is implied from 

the County Commissioners’ constitutional and statutory powers to enact 

zoning ordinances and other regulations not in conflict with state law.”6

Moreover, because the complaint was not filed within ten days of the August 

15 filing of the ballot question, the complaint was untimely under state law.7

The plaintiff dismissed its complaint voluntarily on January 24, 2003.8

1. Complaint, Lamar Co. v. Spokane Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, No. 2:02-cv-326 (E.D. 

Wash. Sept. 26, 2002), D.E. 1. 

2. Id. (noting that the advisory question was adopted on August 6, 2002). 

3. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Oct. 1, 2002), D.E. 2, 3. 

4. Order, id. (Oct. 2, 2002), D.E. 10. 

Judge Van Sickle died on September 2, 2021. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

5. Minutes, Lamar Co., No. 2:02-cv-326 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2002), D.E. 21. 

6. Opinion at 5, id. (Oct. 15, 2002), D.E. 24. 

7. Id. at 7–8. 

8. Voluntary Dismissal, id. (Jan. 24, 2003), D.E. 26.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

ALEX MELENDEZ, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

: NO. 11-6632

v. :

: CRIMINAL ACTION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : NO. 05-44-7

Defendant. :

____________________________________:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2013, upon consideration of Petitioner Alex 

Melendez’s § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Set Aside / Correct a Sentence (Doc. No. 939), the 

Government’s Opposition to the Motion (Doc. No. 961), and Mr. Melendez’s Reply (Doc. No. 

966), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum 

Opinion;

2. No certificate of appealability will issue because reasonable jurists would not 

disagree with this denial of Mr. Melendez’s Motion;

3. The Clerk of Court shall mark this matter CLOSED for all purposes, including 

statistics.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Gene E.K. Pratter

GENE E.K. PRATTER

United States District Judge
# C_2017063EN.01000902.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/9

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl v Comune di Maiolati Spontini

(Case C-140/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Directive 2014/24/EU - Participation in a tendering procedure - Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work - Judicial obligation to include such a reference - Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission))

(2017/C 063/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Comune di Maiolati Spontini

Defendant:

Joined party: Torelli Dottori SpA

Joined party:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The principle of equality of treatment and the duty of transparency, as implemented by Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of a tenderer from a procedure for the award of a public works contract as a result of the tender’s failure to comply with a requirement to indicate clearly in the tender the business charges relating to safety and security at work — for which the penalty for non-compliance is exclusion from the procedure — a requirement which arises, not expressly from the procurement documents or from national legislation, but from an interpretation of that legislation and the filling of gaps in those documents by the national court adjudicating at last instance. The principles of equality of treatment and of proportionality must also be interpreted as not precluding such a tenderer from being afforded the opportunity of remedying the situation and satisfying that requirement within a time-limit set by the awarding authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.

1

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document











 



 
 

Exhibit 10.10    
    


 
 

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE    



        For
one Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, David Q. Tognoni, ("Assignor"), does hereby assign, convey and set over
unto Great Western Exploration, LLC ("Assignee"), whose legal address is 2008 Meander Road, Windsor, CO, 80550, all of his right, title and interest in and to that certain Mining Lease
dated January 2, 2004, between Assignor and Kenneth Alan Sullivan and Cherrill L. Sullivan, upon certain real property described in said lease which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference. 


        TO
HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the Assignee and its assigns from this date forward for the rest of the term of said lease, subject to the covenants, conditions and provisions therein; 


        SIGNED
AND DELIVERED this 3rd day of February, 2004. 



	

 	
 	

/s/ David Q. Tognoni
 David Q. Tognoni	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

/s/ George Ann Tognoni
 Witness: George Ann Tognoni	
 	

 













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.10


ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE
No. 60038.

#### L. Barbier *v.*United States,

protest 255987-K (New York).

*480Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the painting here involved is entitled to free entry under paragraph 1807, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NADINE JOHNSON, : CIVIL ACTION

6434 N. 15th Street :

Philadelphia, PA 19126 :

: No. 02-CV-4165

Plaintiff, :

vs. :

:

NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., :

507 Prudential Road :

Horsham, PA 19044 :

:

 Defendant. : 

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FEE PERFECTED

TO THE PROTHONOTARY:

Kindly enter the appearance of Butler Buchanan, III, Esquire and Andrew M.

Schwartz, Esquire, as counsel on behalf of Defendant, NCO Financial Systems, Inc., in

the above-captioned matter.

MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,

COLEMAN AND GOGGIN

BY: _________________________________ 

BUTLER BUCHANAN, III, ESQUIRE,

ANDREW M. SCHWARTZ, ESQUIRE,

Attorneys for Defendant

Attorney for Defendant, NCO Financial

Systems, Inc.

1845 Walnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-575-2661/2765

Case 2:02-cv-04489-WY Document 5 Filed 08/29/2002 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                      EXHIBIT 11
ITEM 14 (c)
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE INCOME (LOSS)
AMERICAN BANKNOTE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
Dollars in thousands, except per share data
Year Ended December 31

Primary Earnings Per Share


                                1996          1995       1994 

Before extraordinary item      $ 4,099    $(22,415)    $(5,701)
Extraordinary item                   -            -       (114) 
  Net income (loss)              4,099      (22,415)    (5,815)

  Net income (loss) 
     for computation           $ 4,099     $(22,415)  $ (5,815)



Weighted average number of common and\
  equivalent shares outstanding:

  Common shares                 19,724       19,095     19,000
  Warrants                         176           -          - 
  Options                          600           -          - 
  Total shares 
     for computation            20,500       19,095     19,000 



Income (loss) per share:
  Before extraordinary item     $ 0.20      $(1.17)     $(0.30)
  Extraordinary item                .                    (0.01)
     Net income (loss)          $ 0.20      $(1.17)     $(0.31)



Primary and fully-diluted earnings per share are the same.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3969 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3969

To amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to expand the definition 
  of aiding the enemy to include the provision of military education, 
                military training, and tactical advice.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 19, 2024

  Mr. Cornyn (for himself and Mrs. Shaheen) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to expand the definition 
  of aiding the enemy to include the provision of military education, 
                military training, and tactical advice.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safeguarding Tactics and Operational 
Procedures from Enemies Act of 2024'' or the ``STOP Enemies Act''.

SEC. 2. AIDING THE ENEMY DEFINITION FOR PURPOSES OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF 
              MILITARY JUSTICE.

    Section 903b(2) of title 10, United States Code (article 103b(2) of 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is amended by inserting 
``provides military education, military training, or tactical advice 
to,'' after ``gives intelligence to,''.
                                 <all>
```
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY COX,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, SAN QUENTIN STATE 

PRISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 2:04-cv-00065 MCE-CKD (DP)

ORDER

Respondent seeks a ten-day extension of time to file his status reports. Good cause 

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent’s September 4, 2015 motion (ECF No. 

166) is GRANTED. The time for filing respondent’s status report described in the court’s 

September 1, 2015 order is extended through and including September 21, 2015.

Dated: September 9, 2015

Cox r. sts eot.or

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 167 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 8157)

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 728678.

(Decided August 1, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the above named Appeal to Reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the entered value and that there is no foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that this appeal to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe earthenware articles here involved, and that such values were tbe entered values.

Insofar as tbe appeal applies to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed. ’

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.