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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         534,001
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,964,459
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 88,255,398
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      32,808,411
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        32,325,100
<LOANS>                                     95,250,969
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (377,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             228,991,947
<DEPOSITS>                                 120,325,676
<SHORT-TERM>                                23,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,802,236
<LONG-TERM>                                 35,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,675
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,607,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             228,991,947
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,664,971
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            6,729,238
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            12,394,209
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,560,965
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,305,130
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,089,079
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   36,618
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             139,718
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,744,257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,538,684
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,242,137
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,242,137
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.02
<LOANS-NON>                                    654,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                933,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               345,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,618
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              377,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           377,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023271EN.01002501.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2023 — Instituto Cervantes v Commission

(Case T-376/21) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of language training services for the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union - Classification of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Parts of the tender accessible via a hypertext link - Manifest errors of assessment - Misuse of powers)

(2023/C 271/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Instituto Cervantes (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Ilkova, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: I. Herranz Elizade, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 19 April 2021 by which it awarded Lot No 3 (Language Learning in Spanish) of the contract relating to Framework Contracts for Language Training for the Institutions, Bodies and Agencies of the European Union (HR/2020/OP/0014) in first place to the consortium CLL Centre de Langues-Allingua and in second place to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Instituto Cervantes to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Instituto Cervantes to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---
MEMORANDUM 

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0603 

RE: Telephone Conversation with Mr. Mike Monea (SaskPower), February 2, 2016 

On February 2, 2016, Dr. Nick Hutson (US EPA/OAR) and Mr. Steven Silverman (US EPA/OGC) spoke by 

teleconference for about 20 minutes with Mr. Mike Monea, President, Carbon Capture & Storage 

Initiatives with SaskPower (Saskatchewan, Canada). Mr. Monea leads the CCS project at SaskPower 

Boundary Dam Unit 3 (BD3), which has installed full scale CCS. The purpose of the call was to discuss

BD3’s recent performance with respect to CO2 capture, and the overall operation of the CCS system. 

During the call, Mr. Monea made the following points: 

 The reported operating issues the plant has faced are not unexpected in the initial startup 

period of operation of a complex emission control system. 

 Most of the issues that have affected system operation have been related to ancillary systems 

rather directly to the carbon capture system itself. The chemistry of the capture system has 

worked as designed throughout the operating period. Among the ancillary issues were valve 

and duct design (they were initially installed too close together in some plant areas), and the 

amine storage vessel which was delivered with visible hairline cracks in the vessel floor and 

“weeped” – i.e., showed visible accumulated moisture – and had to be replaced; 

 In initial months of operation, super heater steam temperature needed to be recalibrated and 

leaky steam valves replaced to avoid degradation of amines due to overheating; 

 The plant was taken down for maintenance in September and October to address various 

operational issues related to sodium-based sub-micron particles that were fouling demisters at 

the exit of the SO2 scrubber upstream of the carbon capture system; 

 The plant captured CO2 at a rate of approximately 45% over its initial year of operation (415,000 

tonnes captured); 

 SaskPower did incur some penalties in its first 6 months of operation for delivering less CO2 to 

the EOR site than the contract called for; Mr. Monea expects that the operation will run at a net 

profit to SaskPower over the full year, and thereafter; and 

 Any issue regarding whether to add CCS to other Boundary Dam units relates to questions of 

manpower, not to questions about efficacy of the CCS technology. 

Overall, Mr. Monea is optimistic that operating issues have been resolved. He cited the plant’s 

performance in November, December and January, where capture rates have exceeded 

contractual amounts, and where capture rates increased each month. He also noted that the 

plant met 90% “nameplate” capacity each time it was operated to maximize carbon capture. 

Mr. Monea also told us that the company has commenced a CCS “knowledge center”, coupled 

with on-line posting of plant operating results in order to disseminate information about 

Boundary Dam operations in a highly transparent manner.
SCPW-14-0001346

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

Q. BRITT CORMIER, Petitioner,

vs.

THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the document submitted by

Petitioner Q. Britt Cormier entitled, “Notice of Appeal from the

Family Court First Circuit for not Filing Documents,” which was

filed as a petition for a writ of mandamus on December 8, 2014,

the document attached thereto and submitted in support thereof,

and the record, it appears that (1) the first circuit family

court has filed several petitions for temporary restraining

orders in which Petitioner sought relief against Kayla M. Malsol

and Charisse Gali, and (2) the most recent petitions were filed

in the first circuit family court on November 28, 2014. 

Petitioner, therefore, fails to demonstrate that she is entitled

to the requested relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200,

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-14-0001346

21-JAN-2015

02:58 PM
2

204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an

extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner

demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack

of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or

obtain the requested action); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai#i

109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (mandamus relief is

available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed

to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and

certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly

prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is

available). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 21, 2015.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                  CERTIFICATION
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, and in connection with the quarterly report on
Form 10-QSB of Volunteer  Bancorp,  Inc. (the  "Company")  for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof  (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned,  Reed D.  Matney,  President  of the
Company, hereby certify that (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  and (2) the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

     This Certification is signed on August 14, 2003.


                                            /s/ Reed D. Matney
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Reed D. Matney, President
* 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. 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 30, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50866 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE DIMAS MEDINA-ARGUETA, also know as Jose Dimas Medina, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (USDC No. 1:04-CR-169-1)

_________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Dimas Medina-Argueta pleaded guilty to harboring illegal aliens and conspiring to harbor illegal aliens. He appeals his sentence arguing that the district court2

erred in applying the “vulnerable victim” enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3A1.1(b)(1). We agree that the district court erred in applying the enhancement. United States v. Medina-Argueta , – F.3d –, 2006 WL 1752145, at *3 (5th Cir. June 27, 2006). However, Medina-Argueta’s sentence falls within a properly calculated guideline range, and thus, his sentence remains presumptively reasonable. Id. at *4. Because Medina-Argueta does not contend that his sentence is unreasonable based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we affirm his sentence. 

### AFFIRMED.
#### Homer Lee MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-134.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Ollie BROWN, Appellant, v. Evelyn BROWN, Appellee.

No. 70-1068.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 16, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
- A
                            - B
                            - C
                            - D
                            - E
                            - F
                            - G
                            - H
                            - I
                            - J
                            - K
                            - L
                            - M
                            - N
                            - O
                            - P
                            - Q
                            - R
                            - S
                            - T
                            - U
                            - V
                            - W
                            - X
                            - Y
                            - Z
                            - #

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# O | A to Z Index of HHS Topics

Obesity

Office for Civil Rights (OCR)

Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP)

Office of Budget (HHS)

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (OCIIO)

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and External Affairs (IEA)

Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA)

Office of Minority Health (OMH)

Office of the General Counsel (OGC)

Office of Inspector General (OIG)

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC)

Office of the Secretary (OS)

Office of the Surgeon General (OSG)

Open Government at HHS

Opioids

Oral Health

Organ Donation & Transplantation

Osteoporosis

Ovarian Cancer

Overdose Prevention Strategy

Opioid Overdose: How to Respond

Other A-Z Indexes in HHS

## A-Z Index FAQs

                                - What is the A-Z Index?
                                - What items are included?
                                - Are there other A-Z indexes in HHS?

Content last reviewed January 27, 2023
#### ENOCH HOLLIS *vs.*JONATHAN MORRIS.

A sale of a crop of corn growing, though within the statute of frauds, not being reduced to writing, may be taken out by a part execution, as the taking of the com by the vendee and converting it into money.

And though in such case the count for goods sold and delivered would be bad, the plaintiff may recover as for money had and received to his use»

Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered; and the money counts. Pleas, non-assumpsit, payment, discount and the act of limitations.

The entry on the plaintiff’s day book charged the defendant with

*“*one horse loaned and not returned,

one *gig*“ ditto

A crop of corn growing on the ground $200

It was objected by *Cullen*and *Frame*for the defendant, 1st. Thai the proof of a bailment of the horse and gig did not support the action ; and, 2d. That the sale of the crop of corn standing on the ground and growing, was a sale of an interest in the land, and being within the statute of frauds must be evidenced by writing. 6 *East Rep.*102, *Crosby*vs. *Wadsworth;*11 *East Rep.*362, *Parker*vs. *Staniland;*2 *Taunt.*38, *Emerson*vs. *Rillis.*And 3d. That if recoverable in assumpsit, the plaintiff must count on a special contract foi a crop of corn bargained and sold, and not for goods sold and de* livered. 1 *Ghitty Plead.*339; 5 *Esp. Rep.*176; 13 *East Rep.*249.

*The Court*

said that many of the authorities as to the second point distinguish between contracts executed and executory, and regard a contract executed on one side as out of the statute. The lat'ei cases seem to conflict with the earlier-. We shall charge the juiy that if this contract has been executed by the receipt of the corn by defendant, the plaintiff may recover. And though the declaration should be for a crop of corn bargained and sold, if the proof establish that the defendant took the corn, sold it and received the proceeds» *the*plaintiff may recover oh the count for money had ahd received *4to his use; for, even without any contract, and if the defendant took it as a trespasser, the plaintiff might waive the trespass and recover in this form of action. On the first point there has been some proof of an actual sale of the horse and gig, which we shall leave to the jury-

*Layton*for plaintiff.

*Cullen*and *Frame*for defendant.

The plaintiff then proved a sale of the corn to defendant for $195: and that he had gathered and sold it, and received the proceeds. The horse was worth $60: — value of the gig not proved.

Yerdict for plaintiff $138 25.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1047 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1047

  To provide for the issuance and sale of a semipostal by the United 
    States Postal Service to support effective programs targeted at 
        improving permanency outcomes for youth in foster care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2013

 Mr. Grassley (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Cochran) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
             on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the issuance and sale of a semipostal by the United 
    States Postal Service to support effective programs targeted at 
        improving permanency outcomes for youth in foster care.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Families for Foster Youth Stamp Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. FAMILIES FOR FOSTER YOUTH SEMIPOSTAL.

    (a) In General.--In order to increase funding for effective 
programs targeted at improving permanency outcomes for youth in foster 
care, the United States Postal Service shall, for a period of not less 
than 4 years, provide for the issuance and sale of a semipostal, in 
accordance with section 416 of title 39, United States Code.
    (b) Disposition of Amounts.--
            (1) Adoption opportunities program.--Fifty percent of any 
        amounts becoming available from the sale of the semipostal 
        under this Act shall be transferred to the Secretary of Health 
        and Human Services for programs and activities authorized under 
        section 203 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and 
        Adoption Reform Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 5113) that specifically 
        target improvement in permanency outcomes for youth in foster 
        care through adoption, guardianship, or kinship care.
            (2) State court improvement program.--Fifty percent of any 
        amounts becoming available from the sale of the semipostal 
        under this Act shall be transferred to the Secretary of Health 
        and Human Services for programs and activities authorized under 
        section 438 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629h).
    (c) Definition.--In this Act, the term ``semipostal'' has the 
meaning given that term in section 416 of title 39, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            9946
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           10095
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  8587
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      38571
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         254117
<ALLOWANCE>                                       2302
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  334503
<DEPOSITS>                                      289230
<SHORT-TERM>                                     13260
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1016
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             1508
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       29489
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  334503
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  20032
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2664
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   519
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 23215
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               10449
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               10589
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            12626
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      250
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 217
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  10532
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4174
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        4174
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.96
<LOANS-NON>                                       1021
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  2093
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       48
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 2302
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2302
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>