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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      10,495,427
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,553,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                   375,608
<INVENTORY>                                 16,203,631
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,628,219
<PP&E>                                      24,859,296
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,857,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,688,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,282,077
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,123,448
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,406,362
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,688,439
<SALES>                                     22,344,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,344,082
<CGS>                                        9,597,981
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,986,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                97,052
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,856,231
<INCOME-TAX>                                   943,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,913,231
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,913,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-19-00059-CV

Style: Rich Robins v. Austen Perry Clinkenbeard and Jonathon G. 

Clinkenbeard aka “Jon Clinkenbeard”

Date motion filed*: June 7, 2019

Type of motion: Agreed Motion to (Slightly) Amend His Brief

Party filing motion: Pro se Appellant Rich Robins

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Amended Brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes.

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Appellant’s motion is granted and his amended brief, to fix the index of authorities and 

record references but with no substantive changes, is ordered to be filed within 5 days of

the date of this Order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7. Appellee’s brief, if any, shall be due 

within 20 days of the filing of the amended brief. See TEX.R. APP. P. 38.6(b), (d).________

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes_____

  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: __June 18, 2019______
No. 40350.

#### Protests 466766-G, etc., of Camlin Corset Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel fabrics or articles in chief value of artificial silk the same as those passed upon in Abstract 37230 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31. Flouncings, allovers, galloons, insertings, and trimmings, embroidered, the same as those passed upon in *United States*v. *Ramig*(17 C. C. P. A. 365, T. D. 43809), *United States*v. *Smith*(12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384, T. D. 40544), and *Glemby’s*v. *United States*(13 id. 533, T. D. 41397), and Alenijon laces similar to those passed upon in *United States*v. *Caesar*(18 C. C. P. A. 106, T. D. 44067) were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430.
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT
C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N (C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2
, SU B P ART B

. SE04360A138
Searched for **http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab97-1/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab97-1/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
|   | EXHIBIT      31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                              |                                                                            |                               |
|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                              | UNITED      MORTGAGE TRUST                                                      |
|                         |                                                                       |                          |
| Date: November      14, 2008 | By                                                                    | /s/ Christine      A. Griffin |
|                              | President,  Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial  Officer |
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 284 

Authorizing filming in the Chamber of the Senate for the use by the Capitol 

Visitor Center. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2005 

Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. DODD, and Mr. REID) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing filming in the Chamber of the Senate for the 

use by the Capitol Visitor Center. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF TAKING OF PICTURES IN 

3 SENATE CHAMBER FOR USE BY THE CAPITOL 

4 VISITOR CENTER . 

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Subject to subsection (b), 

6 paragraph 1 of rule IV of the Rules for the Regulation 

7 of the Senate Wing of the United States Capitol and Sen8 ate Office Buildings (prohibiting the taking of pictures in 

9 the Senate Chamber) is temporarily suspended for the 

10 purpose of permitting the taking of pictures while the Sen-
2 

•SRES 284 ATS

1 ate is in session or in recess for the period beginning on 

2 the date of adoption of this resolution and ending October 

3 31, 2005, at locations and times to be determined by the 

4 Committee on Rules and Administration. 

5 (b) LIMITATION ON USE OF IMAGES.—The pictures 

6 taken under subsection (a) may only be used by the Cap7 itol Visitor Center for a video presentation in the Capitol 

8 Visitor Center after the video presentation has been ap9 proved by the Committee on Rules and Administration. 

10 (c) ARRANGEMENTS.—The Sergeant at Arms and 

11 Doorkeeper of the Senate shall make the necessary ar12 rangements to carry out this resolution, including such ar13 rangements as are necessary to ensure that the taking of 

14 pictures under this resolution does not disrupt any pro15 ceeding of the Senate. 

Æ
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of NYFIX,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Mark R. Hahn,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge, that:

    (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section  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.

/s/ Mark R. Hahn
---------------------------
Mark R. Hahn
Chief Financial Officer
May 28, 2004

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to NYFIX, Inc. and will be retained by NYFIX, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```
(V. D. 15)

Entry No. 1960, etc.

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

(Decided January 12, 1955)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliveb, Chief Judge:

These matters are presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*31 Cust. Ct. 307, Abstract 57636. The judgment entered therein stated: “* * * that the matters be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”

*427The matters have been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values are as set forth in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof.

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Schedule “A”

*United States Remand of Entry dollars protest No. No. Merchandise per each*

Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.

159855-K/19166 1960 25 “Astor” 7 x 50

Binoculars_ 21. 50

Leather eases_ 3. 50

159857-K/19168 1990 50 “Victory”

Binoculars_ 17. 50

Leather cases_ 3. 50

James P. Hebbeb & Co., Inc.

171704-K/19366 3096 175 “Luminas” 6 x 30

Binoculars_ 12. 50

Leather cases_ 2. 50 All net, packed
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) BRETT ANDREW NELSON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-1168 (UNA) ) KERI ANN YODER, et al. , ) ) Respondents. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his Motion to Confirm the Unchallenged Arbitration Award (ECF No. 1, “Pet.”). Petitioner asserts that he and the respondents entered into a contract on May 23, 2018, which provided that the parties would submit to an arbitration process if a dispute arose. See Pet. ¶¶ 1-2. According to petitioner, he initiated arbitration proceedings in October 2019, and an arbitrator issued a decision on November 27, 2019 in his favor. See id. ¶¶ 3-4; see also Pet., Ex. (ECF No. 1-1). This is not petitioner’s first effort to enforce the same arbitration agreement. Petitioner filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia demanding enforcement of the same arbitration agreement against the same respondents. See Nelson v. Jackson , No. 3:20-cv-0028 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 24, 2020). That court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, as amended, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Nelson v. Jackson , No. 3:20-cv-0028 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 26, 2021), appeal docketed , No. 21-10440 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2021).2

It appears, then, that this civil action is duplicative, and the matter has been resolved on the merits in the Middle District of Georgia. Therefore, the Court concludes that petitioner’s claims are barred. See Stark v. Holder , No. 1:15-CV-0202, 2015 WL 1137724, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2015) (dismissing petition “seeking enforcement of the same agreement as against the same defendants and for confirmation of the same arbitration award” that another district court dismissed with prejudice). Nelson’s path forward is to appeal that ruling, which he has done, not to seek a do-over in another district. Cf. MacKenzie v. Fudge, No. 1:20-CV-00411 (TNM), 2021 WL 1061220, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2021) (“Because he brought and lost the same claims in another federal court several years ago, MacKenzie cannot relitigate them here.”). The Court will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition. An Order is issued separately.

________________________ TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge DATE: May 17, 2021
# C_2016419EN.01001501.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Microsoft Mobile Sales International Oy, formerly Nokia Italia SpA and Others v Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MIBAC) and Others

(Case C-110/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Exclusive right of reproduction - Exceptions and limitations - Article 5(2)(b) - Private copying exception - Fair compensation - Conclusion of agreements governed by private law to determine the criteria for exemption from payment of fair compensation - Request for reimbursement of compensation confined to the final user))

(2016/C 419/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Microsoft Mobile Sales International Oy, formerly Nokia Italia SpA, Hewlett-Packard Italiana Srl, Telecom Italia SpA, Samsung Electronics Italia SpA, Dell SpA, Fastweb SpA, Sony Mobile Communications Italy SpA, Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

Applicants:

Defendants: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MIBAC), Società italiana degli autori ed editori (SIAE), Istituto per la tutela dei diritti degli artisti interpreti esecutori (IMAIE), in liquidation, Associazione nazionale industrie cinematografiche audiovisive e multimediali (ANICA), Associazione produttori televisivi (APT)

Defendants:

Interveners: Assotelecomunicazioni (Asstel), Vodafone Omnitel NV, H3G SpA, Movimento Difesa del Cittadino, Assoutenti, Adiconsum, Cittadinanza Attiva, Altroconsumo

Interveners:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular, Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that, on the one hand, subjects exemption from payment of the private copying levy for producers and importers of devices and media intended for use clearly unrelated to private copying to the conclusion of agreements between an entity which has a legal monopoly on the representation of the interests of authors of works, and those liable to pay compensation, or their trade associations, and, on the other hand, provides that the reimbursement of such a levy, where it has been unduly paid, may be requested only by the final user of those devices and media.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Corey
Henry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-1
(the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on
my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and
their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I
have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.



By:

/s/ Corey HenryName:

Corey HenryTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerSantander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date:

March 30, 2018
COMPANY SANITIZED

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0922

This document is the property of the sponsor and may be used only for that purpose intended by the sponsor. Every 

other or additional use, exploitation, reproduction, publication or submission to other parties requires the written 

permission of the sponsor, with the exception of the recipient regulatory agency acting within the limits of its 

administrative authority pursuant to applicable law (e.g., TSCA). The use of these studies/documents for regulatory, 

registration or other commercial purposes, including but not limited to Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and 

Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH), without the express written permission of the sponsor is unauthorized 

and strictly prohibited.
1. INTRODUCTION AND THE AIM OF THE STUDY

This study summarized different technical trials to generate a dust atmosphere with 

unchanged Battery Materials. 

2. GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE

This study does not have a GLP status

3. RETENTION OF RECORDS

4. SUMMARY

Page 2 of 4

 Report; Project 

COMPANY SANITIZED

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0922
5. CONCLUSION

Page 3 of 4

 Report; Project 

COMPANY SANITIZED

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0922
Table 1 Cascade impactor measurement 1

Table 2 Cascade impactor measurement 2

Page 4 of 4

 Report; Project 

COMPANY SANITIZED

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0922
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 318-CV

In re Manuel Barriente s

OR IG IN A L PR OC E E D IN G FR OM WI L L IA MS ON C OU N T Y

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Manuel B arr ientes has f

iled a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition and a motion for temporar

y relief seekingto halt further

proce eding s in the 3 6 8 t h District Court of Willi a mso n County in c a us e numbe r 02 -8 18 -K 36 8. I n that c a us e , B arr ie nte s ple a de d g ui lt y to ag g ravated assault and w as plac ed on def err ed adjudicatio n co m m u n i ty supervision. After the State filed a motion to adjudicate , Ba rriente s applied for a writ of habea s corpus co m p l aining that he had been previously convicted for the same a ssault, and that his prosec ution in cause number 02-818-K368 subje cted him to double jeopar dy . Ba rriente s asked f

or re l i ef i n the form of

a discharg e from supervision and dis missal of t he indi ctment. Followinga hea ring on the merits of Ba rriente s’s application, habeas c orpus re lief wa s denied. Ba rriente s perf

ecte d an appea l from the order denying relief

, and that appea l is now pendingin this C ourt as our c ause numbe r 03-06- 00418- CR. I n th e ins tant p e tit ion a nd mo ti on, B arr ie nte s st a te s th a t a he ari ngon

the State ’s mot ion

to adjudicate in cause number 02-818- K368 has be en set for J une 6, 2007.2 Where a double jeopar dy claim has been denied in a n appea lable orde r, the de fenda nt has a rig ht to appea l be fore the trial of the indictment he attacks. Ex parte Robinson , 641 S.W .2d 552, 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) . Although Robinson is not square ly on point, we believe that the br oa de r pr inc ipl e fo r wh ic h it sta nd s a pp lie s he re . B arr ie nte s’ s do ub le je op ard y c ha lle ng e to h is continued prose cution in cause number 02-818- K368 was de nied in an appe alable or der. B arr ientes ha s a ri g ht t o a

pp e a l th a t or de r b e fo re be ing ex po sed t o f ur the r p ro c e e din g s— and

po ssi ble imprisonment—in that cause . Ba rriente s’s rig ht to appeal f ollowing a

n adjudication of g

uilt is not an ade quate r emedy

for the a sserted double jeopar dy violation. Se e id . at 555. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

is o bli g a te d to ho ld in ab e y anc e any fu rt he r pr oc e e din g s in c a

us e number 02-818- K368 pending final di s p osition of Bar

rientes’ s appea l from the denia l of habe as corpus r elief. We a

re c onfident that the district cour t will comply

with this obligation without t he
nece ssity of this Court issui ng a wr it of mandamus. The motion for temporar y relief is dismi ssed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and Pember

ton Filed: June 5, 2007
# C_2016402EN.01001101.xml

| 31.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber Chamber) of 8 September 2016 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. v Council of the European Union

(Case C-459/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Logistical support to the Iranian Government - Inclusion of the appellant’s name))

(2016/C 402/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

1

---