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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                        0000941914
<NAME>                       Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                 1000
<CURRENCY>                   US Dollars

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                  1.0
<CASH>                           685
<SECURITIES>                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                    20618
<ALLOWANCES>                     70
<INVENTORY>                      1611
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 24815
<PP&E>                           130769
<DEPRECIATION>                   36464
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   125014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            19656
<BONDS>                          50985
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      0
<COMMON>                         50
<OTHER-SE>                       39458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     125014
<SALES>                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 196945
<CGS>                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    186482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               3715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  6748
<INCOME-TAX>                     2822
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              3926
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                     3926
<EPS-BASIC>                      0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                    0.78




</TABLE>
# C_2020240EN.01003201.xml

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/32

---

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hell Energy Magyarország v EUIPO (HELL)

(Case T-323/20)

(2020/C 240/41)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hell Energy Magyarország Kft. (Budapest, Hungrary) (represented by Á. László and B. Mező, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark HELL — Application for registration No 18 002 048

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 in Case R 1712/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to continue the registration process in relation to the rejected goods. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to continue the registration process in relation to the rejected goods.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# 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:*                         July 5, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 29, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 69 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-188, CP2018-262.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-14433 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       6,956,559
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,383,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,940
<INVENTORY>                                  4,947,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,734,179
<PP&E>                                      71,331,156
<DEPRECIATION>                              27,310,706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              79,894,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,083,733
<BONDS>                                     75,775,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,577,000
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (13,848,773)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                79,894,928
<SALES>                                     10,667,977
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,730,941
<CGS>                                        3,219,982
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,167,788
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                77,891
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,105,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,457,672
<INCOME-TAX>                                   967,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,489,872
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                288,600
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,073,116
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   214.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   214.62
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6874 

STANLEY M. MYERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

HOWARD PAINTER, Warden, Mount Olive

Correctional Complex,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,

District Judge. (CA-02-98-3; CA-03-12-3)

Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 3, 2004

Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley M. Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Stanley M. Myers seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Myers has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Debra G. Morehead, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Zenex
     International, Inc.;

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

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     b)   [reserved];

     c)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     d)   disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth quarter in the
          case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls over financial reporting.

Date:   August 15, 2005

     /s/Debra G. Morehead
        Signature

Title:  Chief Financial Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 20, 2016

NO. 03

- 16

- 0011 8

- CR

Benjamin Bustos, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 147TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON , AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order to withdraw funds signed by the district court. Having reviewed

the record, it ap pears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
8

Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2009-0811 Directorate Identifier: 2008-NE-41-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours 

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Replacement 

Hardware 0.0 $ 0.00 $145,524 $145,524.00 18 $2,619,432.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,619,432

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
9

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### TAYLOR *v.*STATE

[No. 51,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided November 6, 1962.*

The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Prescott, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

*Julian B. Stevens, Jr.,*for the appellant.

*Russell R. Reno, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,*with whom ■were *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General,*and *C. Osborne Duvall, State’s Attorney for Anne Arundel County,*on the brief, for the appellee.

Per Curiam.

On December 18, 1961, the appellant pleaded guilty, in the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, to an information charging him with having escaped from the Maryland House *2of Correction “while undergoing lawful imprisonment” therein. Code (1957), Article 27, Section 139.

He raised three questions in his brief, but we find it necessary to consider the third only. He pleaded guilty, but the record fails to show, affirmatively, compliance by the trial court with Maryland Rule 723 b and c (now amended and designated as Rule 719 b 1 and d). Rule 723 b and c provided that “if the defendant appears in court without counsel, the court shall advise him of his right to obtain counsel” and “the record shall affirmatively show compliance with this Rule.” We have held that these requirements are mandatory and must be complied with, irrespective of the gravity of the crime charged, the type of plea entered, or the lack of an affirmative showing of prejudice to the accused. *Hill v. State,*218 Md. 120, 145 A. 2d 445; *Bryant v. State,*218 Md. 151, 145 A. 2d 777; *Williams v. State,*220 Md. 180, 151 A. 2d 721; *Merritt v. State,*221 Md. 118; 156 A. 2d 228. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial awarded.

*Judgment reversed and case remanded for a new trial.*
No. 10593.

#### Auer *v.*Shenk et al.

Decided December 8, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Allen county.

*Mr. Horace A. Reeve*and *Messrs. Ridenour & Halfhill,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John F. Lindemann*and *Messrs. Cable & Parmenter,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Straider, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 425]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered April 7, 1995, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of burglary in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of the fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
# C_2022472EN.01001902.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Orthomol pharmazeutische Vertriebs GmbH v Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

(Case C-418/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food safety - Food - Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 - Article 2(2)(g) - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128 - Food for special medical purposes - Other particular nutritional requirements - Food providing a general benefit for the patient - Distinction in relation to medicinal products)

(2022/C 472/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Orthomol pharmazeutische Vertriebs GmbH

Respondent: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on food intended for infants and young children, food for special medical purposes, and total diet replacement for weight control and repealing Council Directive 92/52/EEC, Commission Directives 96/8/EC, 1999/21/EC, 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC, Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 41/2009 and (EC) No 953/2009 and, in particular, the concept of ‘other medically determined nutrient requirements’,

must be interpreted as meaning that a product constitutes a food for special medical purposes if the disease results in increased or specific nutritional requirements which the food is intended to cover, such that it is not sufficient, for the purposes of such a qualification, that the patient derives a general benefit from the intake of that food because the substances that it contains counteract the disorder or alleviate its symptoms.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---
| 9.   | Code Section      409A.  "In the event      that any amount or benefit to be paid or provided to Executive under      Section 5 of this Agreement would give rise to the imposition of any      tax under Section 409A of the Code ("Section 409A"), the Company will      not pay any such amounts or provide any such benefits during the      six-month period following Executive's “separation of service (as      defined in Section 409A).  If any amount or benefit is not paid      or provided to Executive as a result of the previous sentence, on the      first day following the six-month period      after the Executive's separation of service, the Company      will pay pr provide Executive a lump-sum amount equal to the cumulative      amounts that would have otherwise been paid to Executive during such      six-month period but were not paid.  Thereafter, Executive will      receive his remaining  amounts and benefits in accordance with      this Agreement." |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Section “2. Term      of Agreement”  strike the      language “continue until June 30, 2009” and replace it with “continue      until December 31, 2009”. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Except      as expressly amended herein, the Employment Agreement shall continue and      be in full force in all respects. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|