alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 5--Soybean oil: Supply, disappearance, and price, U.S., 1980/81-2012/13

 Year Price

beginning Beginning Ending Crude,

October 1 stocks Production Imports Total Domestic Exports Total stocks Decatur

Cents/pound

1980 1,210 11,270 0 12,480 9,113 1,631 10,744 1,736 22.73

1981 1,736 10,979 0 12,716 9,536 2,077 11,613 1,103 18.95

1982 1,103 12,040 0 13,143 9,857 2,025 11,882 1,261 20.62

1983 1,261 10,863 0 12,124 9,579 1,824 11,403 721 30.55

1984 721 11,468 20 12,209 9,916 1,660 11,576 632 29.52

1985 632 11,617 8 12,257 10,054 1,257 11,311 947 18.02

1986 947 12,783 15 13,745 10,833 1,187 12,020 1,725 15.36

1987 1,725 12,975 194 14,893 10,927 1,874 12,801 2,092 22.67

1988 2,092 11,737 138 13,967 10,591 1,661 12,252 1,715 21.09

1989 1,715 13,004 22 14,741 12,082 1,353 13,435 1,305 22.28

1990 1,305 13,408 17 14,730 12,136 808 12,944 1,786 20.98

1991 1,786 14,345 1 16,132 12,248 1,644 13,892 2,239 19.13

1992 2,239 13,778 10 16,028 13,012 1,461 14,473 1,555 21.24

1993 1,555 13,951 68 15,574 12,940 1,531 14,471 1,103 26.96

1994 1,103 15,613 17 16,733 12,914 2,683 15,597 1,137 27.51

1995 1,137 15,240 95 16,472 13,465 992 14,457 2,015 24.70

1996 2,015 15,752 53 17,821 14,267 2,033 16,300 1,520 22.51

1997 1,520 18,143 60 19,723 15,262 3,079 18,341 1,382 25.83

1998 1,382 18,078 83 19,543 15,652 2,372 18,024 1,520 19.80

1999 1,520 17,825 83 19,427 16,059 1,375 17,434 1,993 15.59

2000 1,993 18,420 73 20,486 16,318 1,401 17,719 2,767 14.09

2001 2,767 18,898 46 21,711 16,833 2,519 19,352 2,359 16.46

2002 2,359 18,430 46 20,835 17,081 2,263 19,344 1,491 22.04

2003 1,491 17,080 306 18,877 16,866 936 17,802 1,076 29.97

2004 1,076 19,360 26 20,462 17,439 1,324 18,763 1,699 23.01

2005 1,699 20,387 35 22,122 17,959 1,153 19,112 3,010 23.41

2006 3,010 20,489 37 23,536 18,574 1,877 20,451 3,085 31.02

2007 3,085 20,580 65 23,730 18,335 2,911 21,246 2,485 52.03

2008 2,485 18,745 90 21,319 16,265 2,193 18,459 2,861 32.16

2009 2,861 19,615 103 22,578 15,814 3,359 19,173 3,406 35.95

2010 3,406 18,888 159 22,452 16,794 3,233 20,027 2,425 53.20

2011 2,425 19,740 149 22,315 18,310 1,464 19,775 2,540 51.90

2012 2,540 18,975 350 21,865 17,900 2,300 20,200 1,665 48.5-51.5

2012 is a forecast

Sources: USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, National Monthly Feedstuff Prices , and USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Trade System and 

U.S. Census Bureau, Oilseed Crushings .

Supply Disappearance

Million pounds

32

Oil Crops Yearbook/OCS-2013/March 2013

Economic Research Service, USDA
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000009503-JUN-201309:22 AM
Exhibit 12.2
 United Air Lines, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 and Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements
 Six Months EndedJune 30,(In millions)
    
    2009
    
    
    2008Adjusted (e)Earnings (loss):Loss before income taxes & adjustments
for minority interest and equity earnings of
affiliates
    
    $
    (393
    )
    
    $
    (3,351
    )Add (deduct):Fixed charges, from below
    
    
    439
    
    
    
    432Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    Distributed earnings of affiliates
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    Minority interest
    
    
    (1
    )
    
    
    (1
    )Interest capitalized
    
    
    (5
    )
    
    
    (10
    )Earnings (loss) as adjusted
    
    $
    42
    
    
    $
    (2,930
    )Fixed charges:Interest expensed and capitalized and amortization
of debt discounts and issuance costs (a)
    
    $
    269
    
    
    $
    283Portion of rental expense representative
of the interest factor
    
    
    170
    
    
    
    149Fixed charges, as above
    
    
    439
    
    
    
    432Preferred stock dividend requirements (pre-tax) (b)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2Fixed charges including preferred stock
dividends
    
    $
    439
    
    
    $
    434Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    (c)
    
    
    
    (d)Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred
stock dividend requirements
    
    
    (c)
    
    
    
    (d)
 (a)
    
    Amortization of debt discounts includes amortization of fresh-start valuation
discounts.(b)
    
    The Company had an immaterial tax rate in the 2008 period and did not adjust its
preferred stock dividends.(c)
    
    Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $397 million for the six months
ended June 30, 2009.(d)
    
    Earnings were inadequate to cover both fixed charges and fixed charges and preferred
stock dividend requirements by $3.4 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2008.(e)
    
    In accordance with a new accounting standard that became effective January 1, 2009,
the amounts reported for 2008 have been retrospectively adjusted. Retrospective adoption
was required as discussed in Note 2, New Accounting Pronouncements, in Combined Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited).
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/304061return to the previous page
No. 55455.

#### Henry Coehler Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 139239-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

At the trial a sample, of the merchandise was received in evidence as exhibit 1. It was stipulated that exhibit 1 is a musical works encased in an ornamental wooden box in the shape of a church, that said exhibit is used as an ornamental music box, and that it has no other use. On the record made, and following *United States*v. *Borgfeldt & Co.*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 620, T. D. 41461), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.13


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	$464,078.00	January 12, 2020


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned promises to
pay to the order of the Estate of Wesley R. Weis, at 11 Old Tappan Road, Old Tappan, New Jersey 07675 or at such other place as the holder
shall designate, the sum of Four Hundred Sixty Four Thousand and Seventy Eight ($464,078.00) Dollars, payable on the 1st day of January,
2025 (“Maturity”), with no interest until Maturity. Interest after Maturity shall be payable on the unpaid principal balance
at the rate of ten (10%) per cent per annum until same is fully paid.


 


The undersigned will pay on demand all costs and expenses of collection,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred or paid by the holder in enforcing this Note on default.


 


The undersigned waives presentment, demand, notice,
protest and all other forms of demand and notice, in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of
this Note, and assents to the addition, substitution or release of any other person or party primarily or secondarily liable.


 


The undersigned shall have the right to prepay this Note, in whole
or in part, at any time without penalty.


 


The word “holder”, as used herein, shall mean the
payee or other endorsee or assignee of this Note in possession hereof, or the bearer hereof, if this Note is at the time payable to the
bearer.


 




     


     


    

 


 


This Note may not be changed orally nor the obligations hereunder waived
except by an agreement in writing executed by the holder.


 


	Attest:	 	MIKAB CORPORATION 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ David Hauck	 	By: 	/s/ Brian Weis
	David Hauck	 	 	Brian Weis
	 	 	 	President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sherri Lynn EWING, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-30513.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

*854Decided Sept. 16, 2005.

Marcia Good Hurd, Esq., USBI—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William Bartlett, Angel Law Firm, Bozeman, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sherri Lynn Ewing appeals her jury conviction for three counts of distribution of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ewing contends that the district court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial on the basis of one statement made by a confidential informant at trial. We disagree and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ewing’s motion for a mistrial. *See United States v. Allen,*341 F.3d 870, 891 (9th Cir.2003), *cert. denied,*541 U.S. 975, 124 S.Ct. 1876, 158 L.Ed.2d 471 (2004). The district court immediately instructed the jury to disregard the challenged statement. In light of the other evidence presented against Ewing, this cautionary instruction was sufficient to cure any prejudice that the statement may have caused. *See United States v. Escalante,*637 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir.1980).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2015414EN.01004201.xml

| 14.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/42

---

Action brought on 22 September 2015 — ZZ v Council

(Case F-124/15)

(2015/C 414/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to take further action on the application made by the applicant for early retirement, in so far as it was taken after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, thus withdrawing the previous favourable decision, and application for compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision of 12 November 2014 and, in consequence, |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision of 12 November 2014 and, in consequence,

| — | Pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant, assessed, subject to possible increase or decrease during the proceedings, at EUR 85  353,96 (eighty-five thousand, three hundred and fifty-three euros and ninety-six cents), together with interest to run from the date on which the claim was made, 12 February 2015, calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable for the period in question, increased by two points; |
| --- | --- |

—

Pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant, assessed, subject to possible increase or decrease during the proceedings, at EUR 85  353,96 (eighty-five thousand, three hundred and fifty-three euros and ninety-six cents), together with interest to run from the date on which the claim was made, 12 February 2015, calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable for the period in question, increased by two points;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

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




<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,441
<SECURITIES>                                     6,998
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,363
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,810
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,921
<PP&E>                                           2,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,528
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,552
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,263
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,803
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,618
<SALES>                                          4,014
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,014
<CGS>                                              906
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,707)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,707)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,707)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2015398EN.01001001.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/10

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2015 — DTL Corporación, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-62/15 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 181 the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the word mark Generia - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community figurative mark Generalia generación renovable - Partial refusal to register - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 64(1) - Powers of the Board of Appeal - Article 75, second subparagraph - Right to be heard)

(2015/C 398/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: DTL Corporación, SL (represented by: A. Zuazo Araluze, abogado)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | DTL Corporación, SL to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

DTL Corporación, SL to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1197

ROBERT HARLEY GANZE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION; KENNETH J.

PURCELL; STEPHEN JOHNSON; MARIO LOPEZ; DARLENE

ADAMS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-1623-A)

Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 15, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Harley Ganze, Appellant Pro Se. Merrell B. Renaud, HAZEL &

THOMAS, P.C., Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his action alleging numerous claims challenging the Defendants' withholding of federal income taxes from Appellant's pay. Our review of the record discloses

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Ganze v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. CA-97-1623-A

(E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
Before the Third Division,

September 21, 1942

No. 47576.

#### Protest 5838-K/88747 of Man Sun Wing Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation that some of the merchandise in question consists of crude drugs and others of drugs, advanced, and that they are similar to the merchandise the subject of *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) the protest was sustained as to certain of the articles in question.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:13-cr-002

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

RICHARD E. NOBLES,

Defendant.

ORDER

On January 23, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea to Count Four

of the Indictment charging him with money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1957. 

Defendant, represented by counsel, waived his right to appear on the matter before a District

Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free from coercion, and had a basis

in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of his right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Case: 2:13-cr-00002-GCS-EPD Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/11/14 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS 

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count Four of the Indictment. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty

of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1957. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:13-cr-00002-GCS-EPD Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/11/14 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2015190EN.01003401.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/34

---

Action brought on 19 March 2015 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-45/15)

(2015/C 190/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the implied decision of the defendant not to respond to the applicant’s request for a contract for an indefinite period.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the implied rejection decision taken by the defendant on 31 May 2014 and the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim dated 22 December 2014 both refusing him a contract for an indefinite period; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the implied rejection decision taken by the defendant on 31 May 2014 and the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim dated 22 December 2014 both refusing him a contract for an indefinite period;

| — | In consequence, and principally, declare that, at the end of the contract currently running, the applicant will be offered a contract for an indefinite period; |
| --- | --- |

—

In consequence, and principally, declare that, at the end of the contract currently running, the applicant will be offered a contract for an indefinite period;

| — | In the alternative, if it were to prove appropriate to take account only of the sole contract concluded under the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the EU (CEOS), declare that the applicant will be offered a second fixed-term contract under CEOS by Europol at the end of the contract currently running; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, if it were to prove appropriate to take account only of the sole contract concluded under the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the EU (CEOS), declare that the applicant will be offered a second fixed-term contract under CEOS by Europol at the end of the contract currently running;

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

---
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 22

- 00 267

- CR

__________________ REGINALD DCHEIN SAMPSON , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 18

- 10

- 14214

- CR

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 3 , 202 2 , we notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless arrangements were made for filing the record or the appellant explained why he needed additional time for filing the record. The appellan t did not file a response. It appears that the appellant is not entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.2. There being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to file the record, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecut ion. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).2 APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on Novemb er 29 , 2022 Opinion Delivered November 30, 2022 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2326
**Geologic Map of the Palisade Quadrangle, Mesa County, Colorado**
*By* Paul E. Carrara
Version 1.0

This map is presented in Portable Document Format.Adobe Acrobat Reader 4.0™ is required to view it.If you wish to download Acrobat Reader 4.0 free of charge, click here.
Print-optimized Map (1.8-MB PDF file)Screen-optimized Map (1.5-MB PDF file)
Pamphlet to accompany map (74-KB PDF file)
Metadata TEXT file (13 KB)Metadata HTML file (21 KB)
**Download all ArcInfo files in a single archive file:**GZIPed TAR file (358 KB)ZIPed file (357 KB)

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/mf/2000/mf-2326/Questions or Assistance: USGS Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thr Dec  1 12:06 EDT 2016
# C_2015279EN.01005302.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/53

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — FG v European Commission

(Case F-20/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Regulation No 1023/2013 - Types of posts - Transitional rules on grading in the types of posts - Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Suitability for promotion to the grade above - Promotion year 2014 - Administrator without ‘particular responsibilities’ - Promotion possibilities capped at grade AD 12 - Name of that administrator not included in the list of promotable officials in grade AD 12 - Possibility of requesting to benefit under Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Deadline of 31 December 2015 - Admissibility of the action - Concept of measure adversely affecting a person - Amendment of the digital personal file of the official - Administrative information - Published on the institution’s intranet - Failure to satisfy the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2015/C 279/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FG (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and E. Ehrbar, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AD 13 in promotion year 2014.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015, p. 41.

---