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

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

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,640                   1,805
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,689                   1,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                       177                     133
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,032                   4,949
<PP&E>                                          37,024                  31,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,324)                 (9,226)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,025                  75,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,119                  15,170
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          5                       5
<COMMON>                                             6                       6
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,134                  32,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,025                  75,020
<SALES>                                        109,762                  48,995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,762                  48,995
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,192                  46,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (248)                   (102)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,998                   1,044
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,746                   1,984
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,153                     833
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,593                   1,151
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,593                   1,593
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.25                    0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22                    0.15


</TABLE>
No. 48880.

#### Protest 87229-K of Goldfarb Novelty Co. (New York).

*286Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The proof in this case showed that the merchandise consists of antimony articles in chief value of lead, not plated, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 48152, which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the articles in question were held dutiable at 3 cents per pound, but not less than 22)4 nor 'more than 45 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 397 and T. D. 49753, as claimed.
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

F.D. MITCHELL, J.A. FISCHER, M.K. JAMISON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RUDY N. OROZCO

GUNNER’S MATE THIRD CLASS (E

- 4), U.S. NAVY

NMCC A 201400104

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

**Sentence Adjudged:** 18 December 2013

. **Military Judge:** CDR Marcus Fulton , JAGC, USN

. **Convening Authority:** Commanding Officer, USS HALSEY (DDG 97)

. **Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation:** LT M.L. Gardner, JAGC,

USN

. **For App ellant:**  CAPT Charles D. Stimson, JAGC, USN.

**For Appellee:** Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq.

**24 April 2014** 

**---------------------------------------------------**

**OPINION OF THE COURT**

**---------------------------------------------------**

After careful con sideration of the record, submitted without

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved

by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military

Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk o f Court
### Surface water supply of the United States, 1961-65: Part 1. North Atlantic slope basins: Volume 2. Basins from New York to Delaware

By: Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1902

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
No. 96-459.

#### B&M Farms et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Steven LEVY and Margaret Levy, Petitioners, v. Anthony Joseph LILLY, Lourdes Lilly and Government Employees Insurance Company, Respondents.

No. 98-3305.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

Richard A. Sherman of the Law Office of Richard A. Sherman and Mary Ann Phillips of Mary Ann Phillips, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Petitioners.

No response required for Respondents.

KLEIN, Judge.

Petitioners are defendants in an accident case. They seek certiorari review of an order denying their motion for protective order, which requires their expert, orthopedic surgeon A.F. Petti to answer the following questions by interrogatory:

> 1. Please state the number of times that you were deposed between June 1, 1998, through June 30,1998.

> 2. Please state the number of times that your deposition was taken between January 1, 1998 and June 30, 1998 when you were: (a) treating orthopedic physician: (b) defense and/or independent medical examiner; (c) other.

> 3. In the event that you answered affirmatively section (c) in Question No. 2, please state what your role was that led to your deposition being taken.

> 4. Please state the number of times you appeared in court to testify between June 1, 1998 and June 30, 1998. (In the event that you were called to testify in more than one (1) courtroom on a particular date, each time you were to testify counted separately where you appeared)(i.e. If you testified on 1/10/98 before Judge Stretifeld at 1:30, before Judge Stafford at 2:30, and before Judge Andrews at 4:00, that would be three (3) appearances).

> 5. For each court appearance, please state the number of times you were called to testify: (a) By plaintiffs attorney as the treating physician; (b) By plaintiffs attorney as the defense examiner; (c) By defendant’s attorney as a defense examiner; (d) By defendant’s attorney as a treating or consulting physician.

> *355(For purposes of responding to these Interrogatories, it is not necessary that you disclose the name of any patients that you treated or examined; it is necessary for you to identify the names of the attorneys with whom you consulted; and it is not necessary for you to identify the amount of money that you billed or were paid for these services).

We conclude, contrary to the petitioners’ argument, that the respondents are entitled to this information under *Elkins v. Syken,*672 So.2d 517 (Fla.1996) and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(4)(amended effective Jan. 1, 1997 to reflect Elkins). We also reject Dr. Petti’s argument that he is unable to compile this information. We therefore deny the petition.

FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002







In connection
with the Quarterly Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q
for the period ended July 3, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry R. Welch, in my
capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:




The Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and




The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/
      Jerry R. WelchDate:   August
      16, 2010
            Jerry
      R. Welch
              Chief
      Executive Officer and Director
# C_2013079EN.01001101.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/11

---

Action brought on 17 January 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-23/13)

2013/C 79/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to make provision for the collection and treatment of urban waste water in 8 agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 in what are regarded as normal areas, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to make provision for the collection and treatment of urban waste water in 8 agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 in what are regarded as normal areas, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment; (1)

1

| — | order French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the Commission claims that France has failed to implement correctly, in 8 agglomerations, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment.

Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 91/271 required agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more than 15 000 to be provided with collecting systems and to subject waste water to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment at the latest by 31 December 2000.

As regards urban waste water treatment obligations, Article 4(1) of the directive requires the Member States to ensure that waste water entering collecting systems is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before being discharged.

Lastly, the control procedures laid down in Annex I D to the directive make it possible to ascertain whether discharges from urban waste water treatment plants comply with the requirements of the directive pertaining to the discharge of waste water.

---

(1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.

1

---
#### Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7877.

Entry Nos. 719164 and 719647.

(Decided August 31, 1950)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of these appeals for reappraisement was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### International Packers Commercial Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 8074.

Entry Nos. 778; 845.

(Decided January 10, 1952)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley 8. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> That the instant appeal to reappraisement covers first-grade canned corned beef exported from Argentina and packed 24 tins, 12 ozs. each, to the ease.

> That on or about the dates of exportation, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of Argentina in ithe 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 costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States at $2.75 per dozen tins.

> That on or about the dates of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Argentina.

> That the instant appeal -to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

*521On tRe agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $2.75 per dozen tins.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Remington-Rand, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6907.

Entry Nos. 752332, etc.; 897.

Invoices dated London, England, April 18, 1942, etc.

Certified April 29, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 26, 1942, etc., and at Baltimore, Md., February 15, 1946.

(Decided February 20, 1947)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States v. Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importers on entries because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
1 C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: 360 Degrees Beauty & Barber Careers v. Corinthian Land Corporation

Ap pellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 0 0 646

- C V

Trial court case number: 20 1 4

- 21 0 68

Trial court: 1 29 th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, 360 Degrees Beauty & Barber Careers , has filed a notice of appeal of a July 25, 2016 final judgment

. The appellate record was due in this Court on September

23 , 201 6

. On September 28 , 201 6 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the court reporter responsible for preparing the record in this appeal had informed the Court that appellant had not paid, or made arrangements to pay, for the reporter’s record. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 35.3(b). On October 27, 2016, the court reporter notified the Clerk that appellant had requested preparation of the reporter’s record and “ made arrangements to pay for the record. ” Because the court reporter indicated that appellant ha d arranged to pay for preparation of the reporter’s record, we dismiss ed as moot appellant ’ s motion requesting a n “ extension to file the reporter’s record and pay associated fees

. ” We, however, extended the time for filing the reporter’s record to December 8, 201 6

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 3 5

. 3(c)

.

On December 6, 2016, the court reporter notified the Clerk that appellant had not paid, or made arrangements to pay, for the reporter’s record , stating that “she had talked with [appellant’s] the attorney and sent him the invoice” but ha d not received a ny “payment (full or partial)” f or the record. On December 8, 2016, the court reporter again notified the Clerk that appellant had not paid, or made arran gements to pay, for the reporter’s record, stating that she had received from appellant “$1500 of the total $4290 to complete the full transcript.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35(b)(3) (emphasis added) (providing court reporter is responsible for filing reporter’s record if party “has paid the reporter’s fee, has made satisfactory arrangements to pay the fee, or is entitled to p roceed without paying the fee).2

Accordingly, the Court may require appellant to file a brief, and consider and decide the appeal on those issues that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision unless appellant submits written evidence from the court reporter that it has paid or

arrange d to pay the reporter’s fee no later tha n 30 days from the date of this order

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.2(c)(2).

If appellant believes that it is exempt from the reporter’s fee, please filed a written detailed explanation by the due date. A written explanation is required even if appellant has pr eviously claimed that it is exempt from paying the reporter’s fee.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_

/ s/ Russell Lloyd  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: D ecember 13, 2016
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Community Household Employment Programs

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Community Household Employment Programs : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 221*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1948,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5492,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10794 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ISAIAS DIAZ-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-47-ALL-D

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Isaias Diaz-Reyes raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# C_2015007EN.01000702.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — O. Tümer v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-311/13) (1)

1

((Protection of employees in the event of the employer’s insolvency - Directive 80/987/EEC - Employee who is a third-country national and who does not hold a valid residence permit - Refusal to grant an insolvency benefit))

(2015/C 007/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: O. Tümer

Appellant:

Respondent: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a third-country national who is not legally resident in the Member State concerned is not to be regarded as an employee with the right to an insolvency benefit — on the basis, in particular, of claims relating to unpaid wages — in the event of his employer’s insolvency, even though that third-country national is recognised under the civil law of the Member State as having the status of an ‘employee’ with an entitlement to pay which could be the subject of an action against his employer before the national courts.

---

(1)  OJ C 250, 31.8.2013.

1

---