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

<ARTICLE>          9
<CIK>                                      0000037032
<NAME>                                     FIRST VIRGINIA BANKS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                               1000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         295,618
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              25
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               115,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    114,529
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,081,934
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,049,962
<LOANS>                                      6,337,388
<ALLOWANCE>                                     69,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,420,954
<DEPOSITS>                                   7,814,674
<SHORT-TERM>                                   486,710
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            146,253
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,395
<COMMON>                                        46,141
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        452
<OTHER-SE>                                     925,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               9,420,954
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                382,650
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               80,279
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                16,804
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               479,733
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             142,569
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,671
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          319,493
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    6,667
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  11
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                241,118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                157,260
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     157,260
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   104,006
<EPS-BASIC>                                     2.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.99
<LOANS-NON>                                     13,458
<LOANS-PAST>                                    10,315
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,830
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 32,364
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                70,119
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    9,524
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,713
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               69,975
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            69,975
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         67,422


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Garland Wayne WHITE v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 62322.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: Garland Wayne White applying for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Parish of Oua-chita.

Writ denied.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 27802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12747]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: June 14, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 8, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 66 to 
Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2018-165, CP2018-236.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-12747 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Joseph J. Simons, Chairman 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rohit Chopra 

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

Christine S. Wilson 

In the Matter of 

NTT GLOBAL DATA CENTERS 

AMERICAS, INC., as successor in interest to DOCKET NO. 9386 

RagingWire Data Centers, Inc., 

a corporation. 

ORDER WITHDRAWING MATTER FROM ADJUDICATION 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING A PROPOSED 

CONSENT AGREEMENT 

Complaint Counsel and Respondent NTT Global Data Centers Americas, Inc., having 

jointly moved that this matter be withdrawn from adjudication in order to enable the Commission 

to consider a proposed consent agreement; 

Complaint Counsel and Respondent, having submitted a proposed Consent Agreement 

containing a proposed Decision and Order, executed by Respondent and by Complaint Counsel 

and approved by the Direct of the Bureau of Consumer Protection that, if accepted by the 

Commission, would resolve the claims against Respondent in their entirety; 

IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 3.25(c) of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 

C.F.R. § 3.25(c), that all claims against Respondent are hereby withdrawn in their entirety from 

adjudication until June 15, 2020, and that all proceedings before the Adrninistrative Law Judge 

in this matter are hereby stayed pending a determination by the Commission with respect to the 

proposed Consent Agreement, pursuant to Rule 3.25(f), 16 C.F.R. § 3.25(f); and 

IT IS FUTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 3.25(b) of the Commission Rules of 

Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3 .25(b ), that the proposed Consent Agreement shall not be placed on the 

public record unless and until it is accepted by the Commission. 

By the Commission. 

~lActing Sec~ retary 

SEAL: 

ISSUED: April 15, 2020 

- 1 -
ORIGINAL 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20580 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

CASE NAME 

ECM BioFilms, Inc. et al. 

FILE/DOCKET NUMBER 

009358 

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in the 

proceeding the appearance of 

D counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below) 

D counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

181 counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 

lnd ude the name. address. email address. and telephone 

number of each counsel or representative entering an 

appearance in the above proceeding, 

Christine Haaker 

chrlsUne.haaker@thompsonhine.com 

Jeremy Smith 

jeremy.smith@thompsonhine.com 

Thompson Hine LLP 

10050 Innovation Drive 

Suite400 

Miamisburg, OH 45342 

Phone Number: 937-443-6600 

Fax Number: 937-443-6635 

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 

(Christine M. Haaker) 

2. RESPONDENT{$) OR THIRD PARTY(IES) 

Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons. 

partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf 

this Notice of Appearance is being filed. 

O.W.S. Inc. 

O.W.S. Inc. 

497 Carthage Drive 

Dayton, OH 45434 

Phone Number: 937-829-6888 

5. DATE SIGNED 

3/11/2014 

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission 

Room H-113 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington .I?. .C~"'.:....:2:.!0:..:::5..::.8=..0 _______________ _ 

FTC Fonn 232 (rev 7/1 1)
#### Shepherd A. MEGGETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1043.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 26, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Warren S. Schwartz and Frederick C. Sake, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Hill v. State,*133 So.2d 68 (Fla.1961); *Spencer v. State,*133 So.2d 729 (Fla.1961); *Scott v. State,*256 So.2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); *Mack v. State,*270 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); *State v. Bryan,*287 So.2d 73 (Fla.1973); *Lynch v. State,*293 So.2d 44 (Fla.1974); *Henderson v. State,*304 So.2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); *Walker v. State,*330 So.2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
#### EMPLOYERS FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and Henry G. Crowder, Inc., d/b/a Gulf Lane Motel, Petitioners, v. Richard E. BLANCHARD, Jr., a minor, by his next friend and father, Dr. Richard E. Blanchard, Sr., and Dr. Richard E. Blanchard, Sr., individually, Respondents.

No. 71-124.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 28, 1971.

Certiorari denied.
#### NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. Leroy C. MONROE, Respondent.

No. 43842.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 20, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 276 So.2d 547.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, AD KINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7810 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7810

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3519 East Walnut Street in Pearland, Texas, as the ``Tom Reid Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. TILDEN VETERANS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3519 East Walnut Street in Pearland, Texas, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Tom Reid Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tom Reid 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 10, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 7810

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3519 East Walnut Street in Pearland, Texas, as the ``Tom Reid Post 
                           Office Building''.
```
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 23 (a)

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Oxford Health Plans, Inc.:

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-49738, 33-70908, 333-988, 333-28109, 333-35693, 33-94242 and 333-79063)
on Form S-8 of Oxford Health Plans, Inc. of our report dated March 9, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Oxford Health Plans, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity (deficit) and comprehensive earnings (loss) and
cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31,
1998 annual report on Form 10-K/A No. 2 of Oxford Health Plans, Inc.


                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Stamford, Connecticut
August 26, 1999
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20580

Division of

Advertising Practices

December __, 2020

XXX

XXX

XXX

VIA FEDEX

Notice of the Ophthalmic Practice Rules (“Eyeglass Rule”)

To Whom It May Concern:

The staff of the Division of Advertising Practices of the Federal Trade Commission 

recently received a complaint claiming that your office failed to provide a consumer with an 

eyeglass prescription at the end of the eye examination. We are writing to inform you that such a 

practice would violate the FTC’s Ophthalmic Practice Rules, 16 C.F.R. Part 456, known as the 

Eyeglass Rule, which require prescribers to provide a copy of the eyeglass prescription 

immediately after the eye examination, even if the patient does not request it, and prohibit

prescribers from requiring that patients buy eyeglasses as a condition of providing a copy of the 

prescription.

You should also know that prescribers cannot place a liability waiver on the prescription,

require patients to sign a waiver, or require patients to pay additional fees,1 in exchange for a 

copy of the prescription. Prescribers also cannot refuse to perform an eye exam unless the patient 

purchases ophthalmic goods from the prescriber. 16 C.F.R. § 456.2. The Rule is intended to 

allow consumers to comparison shop for eyeglasses.

This letter places you on notice that violations of the Rule may result in legal action, 

including civil penalties of up to $42,530 per violation.

You should review the Rule and, if necessary, revise your practices to comply with the 

Rule’s requirements. For your reference, you may find a business guidance publication produced 

by the FTC, Complying with the Eyeglass Rule, on our web site at https://www.ftc.gov/tipsadvice/business-center/guidance/complying-eyeglass-rule.

 1 A prescriber may require a patient to pay for the eye exam before giving the patient a copy of 

the prescription, but only if the prescriber also requires immediate payment from patients whose 

exams reveal no need for glasses, contact lenses, or other ophthalmic goods. 16 C.F.R. §

456.2(a).
XXX

December __, 2020

Page 2

If you have any questions regarding this letter or the Eyeglass Rule generally, you may 

contact staff attorney Sarah Botha at (202) 326-2036 or staff attorney Alysa Bernstein at (202) 

326-3289. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Serena Viswanathan

Acting Associate Director
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 773 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 773

                     To terminate the EB-5 program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 2019

 Mr. King of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                     To terminate the EB-5 program.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF EB-5 PROGRAM.

    (a) Repeal of Provisions.--Effective on the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the following provisions are repealed:
            (1) Section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality 
        Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)).
            (2) Section 204(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality 
        Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(H)).
            (3) Section 216A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
        U.S.C. 1186b).
            (4) Section 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
        and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
        Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note).
    (b) Applicability.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security--
            (1) shall cease to accept petitions and applications under 
        any authority repealed under subsection (a); and
            (2) shall dismiss all pending petitions and applications 
        described in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
---

|March 30, 2012 | Exhibit 99.10
|-------------- | -------------

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Great Basin Gold Ltd. (the "Company")
|--- | -------------------------------------
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F           
|    | Consent of Expert                    

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2011, and any amendments
thereto, (the Annual Report) to be filed by the Company with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). The Annual Report
incorporates by reference the Annual Information Form of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

I, Philip Bentley, hereby consent to the use of my name in
connection with reference to my involvement in the preparation of the following
technical report (the "Technical Report"):

- Technical Report Update on the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve
  Estimates for the Burnstone Gold Mine dated February 8, 2011; and
- Technical Report Update on the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve
  Estimates for the Hollister Gold Mine dated February 8, 2011

and to references to the Technical Reports, or portions
thereof, in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by
reference of the information derived from the Technical Report in the Annual
Report.

I also consent to the use of my name in connection with
reference to my involvement in the preparation of the Technical Reports and to
references to the Technical Reports, or portions thereof, and to the inclusion
and incorporation by reference of the information derived from the Technical
Reports in the Companys Form F-10 Registration Statement, as amended, filed
with the SEC under File No. 333-163021.

Yours truly,

|/s/ Philip N. Bentley         | 
|----------------------------- | 
|                              | 
|Philip N. Bentley, Pr.Sci.Nat | 

---
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T HO NG WE I Z HA NG , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70558 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 195- 662 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 20, 2011 ** B efo re: R Y M E R , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H ongw e i Z hang, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on ju d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) d e c is io n d e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, and r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on 

# FI LED MA Y06 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70558 2 u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e , L i v . A s h c r o ft , 378 F . 3 d9 5 9 , 9 6 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) , an dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ub st an t i al ev i d en ce sup p o rt s th e IJ’ s ad v erse cred i b i l i ty fi n d i n g b ecau se Z hang t e s t i f

i e d i nc ons i s t e nt l ya s t o w he n he s t art e d pr a c t i c i ng F a l un G ong and w hen h e dec i ded t o l eave C hi na, s e e i d. , and Z h an g f a ile dto p r o v id e p lau s ib le e x p lan a tio n s f

o rth e s e in c o n s is te n c ie s , se e R i ve ra v. Mukasey , 508 F . 3d 1271, 1275 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . S ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e a ls o s up p o rts th e I J ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n b a s e do n th e I J ’s n e g a tiv e a s s e s s m e n t o f Z h an g ’s d e m e an o r . See S i n gh -Ka u rv . I

NS , 1 8 3 F .3 d1 1 4 7 , 1 1 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . I n th e ab s e n c e o f c r e d ib le te s tim o n y , Z h an g ’s a s y lu m an dw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il. See Farah v. A s h c r o ft , 34 8 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). B ec ause Z hang ’ s C A T cl ai m i s bas ed on the sam e e vi dence the agency f o u n dn o t c r e d ib le an dh e p o in ts to n o f u rth e re v id e n c e to s h o w it is m o r e lik e ly th an n o t h e w o u ldb e to rtu r e dif r e tu rn e dto C h in a , h is C A T c la im f a ils . Se e id. at 1156- 57. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### MERCY HOSPITAL, INC., d/b/a Mercy Hospital Blood Bank, Appellant, v. Carlos BENITEZ, individually and as husband of Flora Benitez, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-702.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 18, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1972.

*52Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings, Roy S. Wood, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Milton Kelner, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Mercy Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Mercy Hospital Blood Bank, appeals from an adverse judgment. The appellant was one of two defendants below. By their action the plaintiffs sought and obtained recovery against the appellant-defendant for breach of warranty of fitness of blood supplied by said defendant which when used in a transfusion allegedly resulted in injury to the plaintiff Flora Benitez.

The plaintiffs’ claim was not affected by a subsequently enacted statute removing that basis of liability of suppliers of blood for transfusion, with a certain exemption not pertinent here. Ch. 69-157 (§ 672.316 (5) Fla.Stat, F.S.A.).

It was disclosed in the evidence that in administering blood transfusions the defendant hospital used blood from two sources, from outside blood banks and from its own blood bank which it had created by receiving blood from donors. It appeared without dispute that the blood used in the transfusion in this instance came from the blood bank created and maintained by the defendant hospital. For that reason the liability of the hospital in this case was similar to that which would be applied to an operator of a blood bank, for a warranty of fitness thereof upon sale of the blood.

The transaction relating to the (hospital blood bank) blood in this instance was a sale and not a service. See Community Blood Bank, Inc. v. Russell, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 115.

Affirmed.