alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census En Español
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-TPS.28SP **Contact:**
 PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA:  27 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2011 Versión en español de American FactFinder http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/navigation/1.0/es/d_dataset:DEC_10_PL **No hay comunicado asociado con este producto. Hoja de referencia solamente.**
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### John R. McGREW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12209.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Jan. 8, 1974.

Hal V. Lyons, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jack D. Barnett, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee.

Before PRICE, HALL and WILLIAMS, JJ.

HALL, Judge.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court rejecting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal citing LSA-C.C.P. Art. 968 which states in part:

> “An appeal does not lie from the court’s refusal to render any judgment on the pleading or summary judgment.”

The district court’s refusal to grant a summary judgment is an interlocutory judgment not causing irreparable injury and is not appealable under the express provisions of LSA-C.C.P. Art. 968 or under the provisions of LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2083 relating to appeals generally. Sunmaster Products Company v. Welch, 156 So.2d 96 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1963) writ refused 245 La. 87, 157 So.2d 232 (1963); Sim v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, 241 So.2d 26 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1970) writ refused 257 La. 278, 242 So.2d 248 (1971); Songe v. Tennessee Life Insurance Company, 260 So.2d 149 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at plaintiff-appellant’s cost.

Dismissed.
#### MASSACHUSETTS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Petitioner, v. Samuel M. JOHANSEN, Respondent.

No. 43317.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 3, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 270 So.2d 397.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
10.4


 


SECOND
AMENDMENT TO LEASE


 


WHEREAS,
River Ridge Limited Partnership (the “Landlord”) entered into a lease dated May 30, 2014, (the “Lease”)
with Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Tenant”); and


 


WHEREAS,
on August 27, 2015 the Landlord and Tenant executed a First Amendment to Lease; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease in certain aspects.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein and in the Lease contained, the parties hereto hereby
agree to the following:


 


1.)     
The New Commencement Date (for the Relocation Space) is February 1, 2016 and shall terminate on January 31, 2021. 


 


2.)     
The last two sentences of Section 3.2 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 


 


“Tenant
will be responsible for contributing one hundred eleven thousand two hundred twenty ($111,220.00) dollars toward the cost of the
improvements. Tenant shall pay this cost on the Commencement Date”


 


3.)     
Capitalized terms, not otherwise herein defined shall have the meaning for such terms described in the Lease. 


 


4.)     
In all other respects, the terms and provisions of the Lease are hereby ratified and confirmed and remain in full force and effect.



 




    	 



    	 



    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Landlord and Tenant hereby have executed this Second Amendment to Lease, as a sealed instrument on this
30th day of March, 2016.


 


	LANDLORD:	RIVER RIDGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 Cornerstone Corporation 	 
	 	Its: 	Managing Agent	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Paul E. Tryder	 
	 	 	Paul E. Tryder	 
	 	 	President	 
	 	 	 	 
	TENANT: 	CORBUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Yuval Cohen	 
	 	 	Yuval Cohen	 
	 	 	Chief Executive Officer
260 La. 1135

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Shelton J. WILLIAMS and Adam Amos Mack v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 52216.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 8, 1972.

In re: Shelton J. Williams and Adam Amos Mack applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of either our original or supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J., is of the opinion a showing is made requiring an evidentiary hearing.
#### Carey Michael GOODWIN, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 72-31.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 20, 1972.

Habeas corpus denied.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleasesConstruction Industries

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB12-TPS.84**
**Contact:**  Public Information Office301-763-3030

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  MONDAY, DEC. 3, 2012

## Survey of Market Absorption: 3rd Quarter 2012

The Survey of Market Absorption, sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, uses the Census Bureau's Survey of Construction as its sampling base. Each month, a sample of residential buildings containing five or more units is selected for the survey. The initial three-month interview collects information on amenities, rent or sales price levels, number of units, type of building and the number of units taken off the market (absorbed). Field representatives conduct subsequent interviews, if necessary, at six, nine and 12 months after completion.

These quarterly reports are generally available the first week of March, June, September and December. Additionally, statistics on absorption rates for selected metropolitan areas are also released on the Internet at the same time. For more information, please visit <https://www.census.gov/housing/soma/>.

**No news release associated with this report. Tip Sheet only.**

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Miscellaneous
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-TPS.30 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030/763-3762 (fax)
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 28, 2011 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012 This annual factbook contains more than 1,400 tables of social, political and economic facts about our nation and the world. Among the broad topics covered are marriage and divorce, health, education, law enforcement, national security, social insurance, business, science and technology, agriculture, natural resources, energy, information and communications, banking and international statistics. The source of the data is not limited to the Census Bureau -- statistics are also derived from other federal agencies and private sources. Data in this edition are generally for the most recent year or period available by spring 2011. Internet address: <https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/>. **Highlights** [PDF] **No news release associated with this report. Tip Sheet only.**
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### Ex parte Henry Lee TARVER.

SC 2802.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 30, 1977.

SHORES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, FAULKNER and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
#### Napoleon O’NEAL, Appellant, v. Rufus Bryan STEWART and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 72-592.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 26, 1973.

Howard Warren, Cocoa Beach, for appellant.

James O. Driscoll, of Driscoll, Conrad & Langston, Orlando, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate a summary judgment in favor of defendants. The motion was founded on Rule 1.540(b), RCP 31 F.S.A. We have carefully reviewed the motion and the procedural history leading up to its denial. Based thereon and on the *424briefs and oral argument, we hold that an abuse of discretion by the trial court has not been made to appear. The order under review is, therefore, affirmed. See Farish v. Lum’s Inc., Fla.1972, 267 So.2d 325.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

WATER

MAR 15 1985

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Variances in Water Quality Standards

TO: Water Division Directors

Numerous questions have been raised regarding the granting

of variances to water quality standards. The Preamble to

the water quality standards regulations discusses limiting

the granting of a variance that"... based on a demonstration that meeting the standard would cause substantial and

widespread economic and social impact, the same test as if

the State were changing a use..."

A interpretation by our Office of General Counsel, provides

a better determination on what factors can be considered in

allowing variances from water quality standards. The OGC

interpretation is that any of the factors recognized in the

regulation for justifying a stream use downgrade, not just

the substantial and widespread economic and social impact

test, may be used to support a variance.

Our previous interpretation was somewhat illogical as

it allowed more opportunity for a permanent change in standards

then it did for a temporary, short-term change which could be

granted by a variance. Under Section 510 of the Clean Water

Act, States have the right to establish more stringent standards

than suggested by EPA. Therefore, as long as any temporary

water quality standards modification conforms to the requirements

established in Section 131.10 (g) of the regulation for downgrading

uses, such an approach is acceptable as it would lead to

only a temporary change to a water quality standard rather

than a downgrade, and thus would be more stringent

than the Federal requirements.

This interpretation dies not change the regulation which

provides that States may have general policies affecting the 

application and implementation of standards. It does affect

the discussion of variances contained in the Preamble to the

regulation and the guidance included in the WQS Handbook,

page 1-9. No other aspect of the variance policy and guidance

is altered by this new interpretation. this memorandum should

be kept as part of your permanent file for interpreting

water quality standards.
-2-

Overall, we expect the impact of this change to be

minimal as the discussion of variances appears to far outweigh

its actual affects on the program. Often the confusion

surrounding variances obscures the fact that what is really

being discussed are specialized permit conditions, scheduling

adjustments, site-specific criteria, or actual downgrading actions.

Edwin L. Johnson, Director

Office of Water Regulations

and Standards (WH-551)

cc: Bill Whittington

Peter Perez

Cathy Winer

Net Notzen
# C_2012144EN.01000401.xml

| 23.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 May 2012

2012/C 144/06

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2768 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 101,99 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4317 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80870 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0890 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2011 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5715 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,294 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 297,05 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6977 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3296 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4543 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3314 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2910 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2977 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9154 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6764 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6213 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 487,01 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,5302 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0643 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5568 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 843,07 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9945 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,094 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,7196 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,066 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6062 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4659 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,6640 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2768

JPY

Japanese yen

101,99

DKK

Danish krone

7,4317

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80870

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0890

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2011

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5715

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,294

HUF

Hungarian forint

297,05

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6977

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3296

RON

Romanian leu

4,4543

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3314

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2910

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2977

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9154

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6764

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6213

KRW

South Korean won

1 487,01

ZAR

South African rand

10,5302

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0643

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5568

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 843,07

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9945

PHP

Philippine peso

55,094

RUB

Russian rouble

39,7196

THB

Thai baht

40,066

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6062

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4659

INR

Indian rupee

70,6640

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           188,856
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      15,656
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 204,512
<CASH>                                          25,551
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             129,167
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          12,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 568,948
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                244,915
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             90,095
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 58,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            85
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   568,948
<PREMIUMS>                                      33,268
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              2,798
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                (11)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  10,182
<BENEFITS>                                      23,302
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    (3,116)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            26,190
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (139)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (244)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                105
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       105
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 127,500<F1>
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                115,748<F1>
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Before reinsurance recoverable.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                            LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                   TNPC, INC.



         The undersigned director of TNPC, Inc. ("TNPC") does hereby
constitute and appoint H. Eugene Lockhart, William I. Jacobs and Marc E.
Manly, and each of them, with full power of substitution, my true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact and agents to do any and all acts and things in my name and
on my behalf in my capacity as a director of TNPC in connection with, and
only in connection with, the filing of this registration statement
(including, but not limited to, the execution of any and all instruments for
me and in my name which such person may deem necessary or advisable to enable
TNPC to comply with the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act") and
any rules, regulations and requirements of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in connection with the filing of this registration statement),
including specifically, but not limited to, the power and authority to sign
for me any and all amendments, including pre-effective and post-effective
amendments or any other registration statement filed pursuant to the
provision of Rule 462(b) under the Act; and I do hereby ratify and confirm
all that such person or persons shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.




                                             By: /s/ Richard A. Causey
                                                --------------------------------

                                             Name:  Richard A. Causey
                                             Title: Director
                                             Date:  September 7, 2000
#### Michael P. DICK, Appellant, v. Marilyn I. DICK, Appellee.

No. 71-462.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 8, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
Order entered June 26 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00595
- CR
TADARROWL DERONE CAR SON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13
- 57494
- Y



### O RDER This Court has before it appellant’s June 19, 2015 motion to extend time to file his brief and to supplement the reporter’s record. Appellant states that the record filed does not contain the reporter’s record of the A pril 14, 2014 pretrial hearing. Further, appellant states that a copy of Volume 5, which is the exhibit volume, was not filed with the Dallas County District Clerk’s office as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(h). We GRANT appellant’s

mot ion as follows.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to provide the Dallas County District Clerk a CD containing a copy of Volume 5 of the reporter’s record for use by the parties in preparation of
their briefs.We ORDER Sharon Hazlewood, former official cour t reporter of the Criminal District

Court No. 7, to file, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, the reporter’s record of the April 14, 2014 pretrial hearing.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief within SIXTY DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIREC T the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Elizabeth Frizell, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 7; Sharon Hazlewood, former official court reporter; Vearneas Faggett, official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 7; the Tex as Court Reporters Certification Board; the Dallas County Auditor; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE