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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         336,194
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,654,408
<ALLOWANCES>                                   567,140
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,972,278
<PP&E>                                       4,187,225
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,750,691
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,871,031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,603,629
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     17,089
<COMMON>                                        39,900
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,763,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,871,031
<SALES>                                     14,683,112
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,683,112
<CGS>                                       10,072,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,917,254
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             597,139
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (19,811,265)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (19,811,265)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (19,811,265)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.27)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1122

GURLEY E. GLENN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TWO EMPLOYEES OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-98-498-1) Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gurley E. Glenn, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gurley E. Glenn filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices ofappeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on December 18, 1998; Glenn's notice of appeal was filed on January 20, 1999, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Glenn's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leavesthis court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal. We therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,166
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,860
<OTHER-SE>                                    (30,166)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,048
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,048
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.003)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.003)


</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for Point Source Discharges to Waters of the United 

States from the Application of Pesticides: National Historic Preservation Act

FROM: Prasad Chumble

Rural Branch

Water Permits Division, 4203M

TO: The File

DATE: January 13, 2016

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, established historic 

preservation as a Federal agency policy and provided for the identification and protection of 

historic properties and resources. On December 15, 2015, EPA’s staff from Office of Water and 

Office of General Counsel, and the Office of Federal Activities evaluated the action (EPA’s 

reissuance of Pesticide General Permit) under section 106 of the NHPA. Section 106 of the 

NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions (also known as

“Federal undertakings” in the NHPA regulations) on historic properties that are listed or eligible 

for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and to seek comments from an independent 

reviewing agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

Federal undertaking is defined in the ACHP’s implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800.16) to 

include “a project, activity, or program funded in whole or part under the direct or indirect 

jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; 

those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license 

or approval.” The Federal agency must determine if its actions have the potential to cause effects 

to historic properties. Historic properties are defined in the NHPA to include prehistoric or 

historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects that are included in, or are eligible for 

inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. See 36 CFR Part 800.2(e). However, if the 

Federal action does not have the potential to cause effects, the agency has “no further obligations 

under section 106 or this part” See 36 CFR Part 800.3(a) (1).

EPA has concluded that the reissuance of general NPDES permits is a Federal undertaking but 

the reissuance of the Pesticide General Permit does not have the potential to cause effects to

historic properties. Therefore, EPA has no further responsibilities to consult under NHPA.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form 20-F of
our report dated February 28, 2001 (December 18, 2001, as to paragraph 3 of Note
6 and Note 44), relating to the financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Bayer AG which appear in such Registration Statement.

Essen, Germany

January 14, 2002


PwC Deutsche Revision
Aktiengesellschaft
Wirtschaftsprufungsgesellschaft

<Table>
<S>                                            <C>
/s/ ALBRECHT                                   /s/ SCHILLING
P. Albrecht                                    J. Schilling
Wirtschaftsprufer                              Wirtschaftsprufer
</Table>
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00399

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023

- 006252

- 1

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell , JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### C IRRUS 

### A MIGHI 

### , Appellant

V



### . JP M ORGAN 

### C HASE 

### B ANK 

### , N ATIONAL 

### A SSOCIATION 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT Appellant ’ s brief was due on February 16, 2024 , s ee Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a) , but
no brief was filed

. On February 29, 2024, we war ned A ppellant that we could dismiss
his appeal for want of prosecution unless , within ten days, he filed a brief and a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untim e liness

. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). More tha n a month has passed , a nd Appellant has still
not f iled a brief

. Because A ppellant has failed to file a brief , we dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 3 8.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam
Delivered : April 4, 2024
#### Joseph Earl KIRKLAND, III v. Mrs. Judy McGinty KIRKLAND.

No. 49716.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 9, 1977.

Danks, Craig & Moss, Dale Danks, Jr., Ben J. Piazza, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Henry W. Bryan, Jackson, for appellee.

Before INZER, P. J., and WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Appeal from Cháncery Court, Hinds County; Betty B. Tucker, Chancellor.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49263-49264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24915]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI; ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI]


Private Fuel Storage, LLC; Establishment of Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, 
published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28710 (1972), and sections 
2.105, 2.700,

[[Page 49264]]

2.702, 2.714, 2.714a, 2.717 and 2.721 of the Commission's Regulations, 
all as amended, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being 
established in the following proceeding to rule on petitions for 
hearing and for leave to intervene and to preside over the proceeding 
in the event that a hearing is ordered.

Private Fuel Storage, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation)

    This Board is being established pursuant to a notice published by 
the Commission on July 31, 1997, in the Federal Register (62 FR 41099). 
The proceeding involves an application by Private Fuel Storage, LLC, 
for the issuance of a license for the storage of spent fuel under the 
provisions of 10 CFR part 72. The license, if granted, would authorize 
the applicant to possess and store spent fuel in an independent spent 
fuel storage installation that would be located on the Skull Valley 
Goshute Indian Reservation in Skull Valley, Utah.
    The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555
Dr. Jerry R. Kline, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555
Thomas D. Murphy, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555

    All correspondence, documents and other materials shall be filed 
with the Judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.701.

    Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of September 1997.
B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,
Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 97-24915 Filed 9-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

KELLY CONARD, 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE,

et al., 

 Defendants 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

 Civ. No. 4:06-cv-1450 

 Magistrate Judge Carlson 

 Judge Rambo 

O R D E R 

 In accordance with the accompanying memorandum of law, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 

1) The report and recommendation (Doc. 75) of the magistrate judge is 

ADOPTED; 

2) The motion to reopen the captioned matter (Doc. 73) is DENIED; 

3) The clerk of court is directed to close this file; 

4) Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in good 

faith. 

 s/Sylvia H. Rambo 

 SYLVIA H. RAMBO 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: January 25, 2016 

Case 4:06-cv-01450-SHR Document 79 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-578
In Re: HENRY BATISTE, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Batiste, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Henry Batiste brought this mandamus petition seeking an order directing a state court to enter an order on his motion for default judgment and also seeking an order directing the Attorney Generaland the state court to comply with South Carolina procedure on receipt of post conviction applications. Additionally, Batiste complains that he was erroneously indicted, unlawfully convicted, and received ineffective assistance of counsel; he seeks injunctive relief, a new trial, or release from imprisonment. To the extent that Batiste requests this court to order the state court and the Attorney General to act, we lack jurisdiction. See Davis v. Lansing , 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988). Furthermore,because mandamus is not a substitute for collateral review of criminal convictions, we find that Batiste cannot bring his additional claims. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987) (mandamus is only appropriate when there are no other means by which petitioner could seek the requested relief). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid in the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
HERBERT A. ROSENTHAL

ATTORNEY AT LAW (DC/MD)

6101 PLAINVIEW ROAD HOME: (301) 229-3162

BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20817-6156 CELL: (202) 744-3833

 hrosenthal5@gmail.com TELECOPIER: (301) 229-3925

Saturday, March 28, 2015

DOT DOCKET SECTION

BY EFILING

RE: APPLICATION OF SURINAM AIRWAYS, INC.

EXEMPTION APPLICATION, DOCKET OST-1996-1095

Dear Docket Section:

As of the above date, the following air carriers have indicated no

objection. We have not yet heard from Delta Airlines or American

Airlines or any parties to whom applications were mailed.

Southern Air

Sun Country

Amerijet

Centurion Air Cargo

Virgin America

Florida West

Federal Express

Spirit Airlines

Jet Blue

United Airlines

Southwest Airlines

Surinam’s FAA Principal Operations Inspector in Miami

Surinam Airways would like to begin advertising its new services on

April 2, 2015. Surinam Airways requests the Department to approve

the new co-terminals on April 2, 2015. Answers to the application

are due on April 1, 2015. The Sanford, Florida, Airport Manager’s

Office has submitted a letter in support of Surinam’s application.

That letter has not yet been posted to the Docket.

Thank you.

/s/ Herbert A. Rosenthal

HERBERT A. ROSENTHAL

ATTORNEY FOR SURINAM AIRWAYS

CC: ALL PARTIES WITH EMAIL ADDRESSES
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47482-47483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23798]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-493-000]


Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of GSR Revised Tariff Sheets

September 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 29, 1997, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets with the proposed 
effective date of September 1, 1997:

Tariff Sheets Applicable to Contesting Parties

Thirtieth Revised Sheet No. 14
Fifty-First Revised Sheet No. 15
Thirtieth Revised Sheet No. 16
Fifty-First Revised Sheet No. 17
Thirty-Fourth Revised Sheet No. 29

    Southern submits the revised tariff sheets to its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, to reflect a change in its FT/FT-NN GSR 
Surcharge, due to an increase in GSR billing units effective September 
1, 1997.
    Southern states that copies of the filing were served upon all 
parties listed on the official service list compiled by the Secretary 
in those proceedings.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests must be filed 
in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of Southern's filing are on file 
with the

[[Page 47483]]

Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23798 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Edd BARNES, Petitioner, v. E. R. LAWLER, Shelby Mutual Insurance Company and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 37624.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 4, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1970.

Charles F. Lindsay, Miami, for petitioner.

Charles T. Kessler, of Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission, now Industrial Relations Commission.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose, and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A.

*220We conclude from our consideration of the petition, record and briefs, that the order of the Commission must be quashed on authority of the decision of this Court in Brown v. Griffin, 229 So.2d 225 (Fla.1969), and the cause remanded with directions that the matter be returned to the Judge of Industrial Claims for further findings of fact on the evidence already taken, in compliance with our opinions in Brown v. Griffin, *supra,*and Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs, 81 So.2d 503 (Fla.1955).

- Petitioner’s application for attorneys fees is granted in the amount of $250.00.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24834]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[CO-930-1430-01; COC 1269]


Public Land Order No. 7283; Partial Revocation of Executive Order 
No. 5327 and Public Land Order No. 4522; Colorado

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public land order.

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

SUMMARY: This order partially revokes an Executive order and a public 
land order insofar as they affect 164.86 acres of public land withdrawn 
for protection of oil shale resources. The withdrawals are no longer 
needed for this purpose and revocations are needed to permit disposal 
of the land through sale under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, 
as amended. The land is temporarily closed to surface entry and mining 
due to a pending sale application. The land has been and will remain 
open to mineral leasing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris E. Chelius, BLM Colorado State 
Office, 2850 Youngfield, Lakewood, Colorado 80215-7076, (303) 239-3706.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:
    1. Executive Order No. 5327 and Public Land Order No. 4522, which 
withdrew public land for the protection of oil shale and associated 
values, are hereby revoked insofar as they affect the following 
described land:

Sixth Principal Meridian

T. 6 S., R. 94 E.,
    Sec. 17, lots 18, 20, 22, and 24;
    Sec. 20, lots 1, 5, 8, and 11.

    The area described contains 164.86 acres in Garfield County.

    2. At 9 a.m. on October 20, 1997, the land will be opened to the 
operation of the public land laws generally, subject to valid existing 
rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of 
record, and the requirements of applicable law. All valid applications 
received at or prior to 9 a.m. October 20, 1997, shall be considered as 
simultaneously filed at that time. Those received thereafter shall be 
considered in the order of filing.

    Dated: September 4, 1997.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 97-24834 Filed 9-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P