alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government





---

close


back button
 Laos source
 Print Share
 Basic Facts Population
 People per sq. km
 Males per 100 females
 Children per woman
 Goods exported from U.S.
 Goods imported to U.S.
 Change in exports from U.S. for 2014 to 2023
 A Closer Look Source
 Comparisons
 Compared to the U.S.
 Compared to the World
 K = Thousands
                M = Millions
                B = Billions
  Merchandise Trade U.S. Trade in Manufactured Goods
 Top Exported Goods by U.S. State or Territory
 Population Current and Projected Population
 Population by Age and Sex
 Source and Notes Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Database (demographic data) and USA Trade Online (trade data); Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact Book (country reference maps). This application presents data for 228 countries and areas of the world with a 2024 population of 5,000 or more. For eleven of those countries and areas, only demographic data are presented. "Data not available" indicates that data are not available from this application.  In such instances, data may be available elsewhere at the census.gov website. Trade figures presented for France do not include data for overseas departments French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and Reunion but do include data for dependencies Saint Barthelemy and Saint Martin.  Trade figures for the United Kingdom include data for crown dependencies Guernsey, Isle of Man, and Jersey. To learn more about world population projections, go to Notes on the World Population Clock. To learn more about international trade data, go to Guide to Foreign Trade Statistics. All trade figures are in U.S. dollars on a nominal basis.


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
#### Muriel P. McCloskey, Plaintiff, *v.*John L. McCloskey, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

November 7, 1953.

*899
      *Barnett L. Kulak*for plaintiff.

*Bernard S. Kanton*for defendant appearing specially.

Moss, J.

This is a motion by plaintiff wife for an order enjoining defendant husband from proceeding with the prosecution of his action for divorce instituted by him in the State of Nevada. The moving papers were served upon defendant’s attorneys who had previously appeared for him in the separation action commenced by plaintiff wherein temporary alimony and counsel fee had been awarded. Defendant has defaulted in his payments and is now in arrears. Defendant left the State of New York and went to Nevada where he started his action for divorce against plaintiff by publication. Defendant’s attorneys have appeared specially on this motion contending that this court has no jurisdiction as service upon the attorneys was improper since they no longer represented defendant. This position is not well taken. The motion is part of and incidental to the separation action and plaintiff having shown prima facie that defendant’s alleged residence in Nevada was a sham this court has jurisdiction over the defendant for the purpose of granting injunctive relief based upon the original service of the summons in the separation action. Where the husband has appeared generally in an action for separation brought against him in the courts of this State a notice of motion in which the wife seeks an order restraining the prosecution of a foreign divorce may properly be served upon the attorneys who appeared for him in the separation action *(Garvin*v. Garvin, 302 N. Y. 96). Accordingly, the motion is granted. Settle order on notice.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Governments
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-TPS.18 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030/3762 (fax)
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2011 2011 1st Quarter Summary of State and Local Government Tax Revenue This summary shows quarterly tax revenue statistics on property, sales, license, income and other taxes. Statistics are shown for individual state governments as well as national estimates of total state and local taxes, including 12-month calculations. This quarterly survey has been conducted continuously since 1962. Internet address: <https://www.census.gov/govs/qtax/>. **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
#### Maria de las Mercedes Gomez y Vivanco de GARCIA and Carlos Garcia y Gonzalez del Rio, Appellants, v. Mario SEIGLIE et al., Appellees.

No. 1035.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

July 27, 1967.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Culver Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2012180EN.01002701.xml

| 21.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/27

---

Corrigendum to notice of open competition 2012/C 168/06

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 168 of 14 June 2012
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 168 of 14 June 2012

2012/C 180/13

The publication of notice of open competition 2012/C 168/06 is to be considered null and void.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         233,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,889,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,140,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,022,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,536,000
<PP&E>                                      44,793,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,084,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              74,771,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,602,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    18,130,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                74,771,000
<SALES>                                     37,612,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,612,000
<CGS>                                       21,632,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,632,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,729,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,388,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,863,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,659,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,204,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,204,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23


</TABLE>
#### Alma BRIDGES, a widow, Petitioner, v. FIELDS EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., etc., Respondent.

No. 43548.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 10, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 273 So.2d 421.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Clark MERRILL, as Chairman of the Metro Utility Tax Repeal Committee, and Elmore Kerkela, as President of the Dade County Association of Unincorporated Areas, Appellees, and Leigh Portland Cement Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, Intervenor.

No. 73-906.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 3, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Major Instruments and Agreements on Santa Monica Airport Land EXHIBIT
Exhibit 10.7


 


 


May 1, 2016


 


Noah Davis


President


Brown Book Shop, Inc.


1517 San Jacinto


Houston, Texas 77002


 


Dear Brown Book Shop, Inc.,


 


This document shall serve as an amendment for the consulting
agreement signed February 1, 2014. The only change shall be from “1.11.” The base management fee shall be changed to
$4,500 per month.


 


Sincerely,


 


Clear Financial Solutions, Inc. by:


 


 


/s/ Steven Plumb


 


Steven Plumb


 


 


 


Review and accepted:








 





	/s/ Noah Davis


	5/1/16	 
	 	 	 
	Noah Davis	Date
# C_2014038EN.01000101.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7103 — USS/Optrust/PGGM/Global Via Infraestructuras/Globalvia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 38/01)

On 29 January 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7103. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7103. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CARL ELISAS WHITEHEAD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 427 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of March, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 40502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17561]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-26-2018]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38--Spartanburg, South Carolina; 
Authorization of Production Activity; AFL Telecommunications, LLC; 
(Optical Cable for Data Transfer); Duncan, South Carolina

    On April 11, 2018, AFL Telecommunications, LLC submitted a 
notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its 
facility within FTZ 38, in Duncan, South Carolina.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (83 FR 17790, April 24, 2018). On 
August 9, 2018, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision 
that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.14, and to a restriction requiring privileged foreign 
status (19 CFR 146.41) on admissions of aramid yarn, ripcord, binder 
string and water swellable yarn.

    Dated: August 9, 2018.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17561 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### The CITY OF WEST MELBOURNE et al., Appellants, v. Floyd W. BROWN and Larry Archibald, Appellees.

No. 73-1125.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 28, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Clarence T. Johnson, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

MAE HENDRIX, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

October 27, 2016 

v No. 328191 

Oakland Circuit Court 

LAUTREC, LTD, LC No. 2014-142087-NO 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Before: FORT HOOD, P.J., and GLEICHER and O’BRIEN, JJ. 

O’BRIEN, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). 

 I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority’s conclusion that a 

genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Lautrec, Ltd., breached its duty to 

maintain pursuant to MCL 554.139(1)(a). In my view, Allison v AEW Capital Mgt, LLP, 481 

Mich 419; 751 NW2d 8 (2008), controls. The majority finds Allison factually distinguishable, 

concluding that parking lots and driveways in apartment complexes differ as to whether they are 

“intended for pedestrian access to the garages and pedestrian access to the residential units.” 

However, here and in Allison, there can be no dispute that the pathway at issue, whether it be 

through a parking lot or through a driveway, was “intended for pedestrian access to the garages 

and pedestrian access to the residential units.” While it may be true that parking lots and 

driveways may have different “primary” uses, I do not think that it can be disputed that both are 

“intended for pedestrian access to garages and pedestrian access to the residential units.” 

Accordingly, I would affirm. Nevertheless, I do agree that the condition at issue was open and 

obvious as a matter of law. 

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         622,259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    178,401
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,087,288
<PP&E>                                       6,556,245    
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,704,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,021,364
<BONDS>                                      1,494,674        
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,138
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,893,362
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,704,461
<SALES>                                     13,216,495
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,216,495
<CGS>                                        2,983,936
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,831,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (326,494) 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (941,928)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (941,928)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (941,928)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.10)    
<FN>
Other Current Assets                           234,017
Investments, Net                                     0
Goodwill, Net                                  752,133
Other Assets                                   308,795
A/P                                            890,031
Accrued Expenses and Other Liabilities         608,452
Current Portion of Notes and Equipment       1,222,881
Deferred Rent                                1,030,674
Minority Interest                            1,255,249
Paid in Capital                              9,536,277
Accumulated Deficit                         (7,642,915)
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S

N O . W R - 8 4 , 4 8 3 - 0 2 E X P A R T E A N D R E O S A G I E , A p p l i c a n t O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . 1 6 6 4 2 B I N T H E 2 1 D I S T R I C T C O U R T S T F R O M W A S H I N G T O N C O U N T Y A L C A L A , J., fi led a concurring opin ion . CONCURR ING

OP INION I join this Court’s rema

nd order be cause I ag ree with its observa tion that applicant has alleg ed fac ts that “if true, might entitle h i m to relief .” Be cause applicant has pleade d a colora ble ineffe ctive-a ssistance-of

-c o u n s e l c la im, I would order the habea s court on rema nd to appoint counsel for him upon reque st if he is indig ent, reg ardle ss of whether the trial court holds a hear ing. See Ex p a r te P o in te r , 492 S.W .3d 318, 320-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (per curia m) (Alca la, J ., concur ring ). At a minimum , h o weve r, in addition to the order ’s curr ent admonition that the appointment of counsel is mandatory for an indige nt applicant upon reque st if the habea s court holds a h ea ri ng , I would include a further admonishment that an indige nt applicant is “entitled” to the appointment of counsel upon reque st “if the court conclude s that the interests of justice require repr esenta tion.” See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . A R T . 1.051(d). Filed: Oc tober 5, 2016 Do Not Publish
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6997
CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus ROBERT BOHANNON, Bohannon, Bohannon & Hancock, Attorneys at Law; JAMES O. BROCCOLETTI, Zoby & Broccoletti, Attorneys at Law, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-03-336-2) Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: March 16, 2004 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleveland McLean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Cleveland McLean, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See McLean v. Bohannon , No. CA-03-336-2 (E.D. Va. May 21, 2003). We deny McLean’s motion for attorney’s fees. 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
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 CB12-TPS.55 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  THURSDAY, AUG. 16, 2012 Childbearing Patterns in the U.S. Live on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" "America by the Numbers" Segment Teen births have declined sharply over the years. Find out more on Friday at approximately 9:15 a.m. EDT as Stephanie Ventura, chief of the National Center for Health Statistics' Reproductive Statistics Branch, discusses the shifts in childbearing over the years. Each Friday, C-SPAN's "America by the Numbers" segment features information from the federal statistical system. The program highlights trends and allows the public to call in or email their views. More information on previous C-SPAN programming is available at <https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan.html>. No news release associated with this product. 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
AMERICAN SAMOA

2010 Census Results - District and Island Reference Map

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau

For more information visit www.census.gov.

WESTERN

DISTRICT

SWAINS ISLAND

ROSE ISLAND

MANU'A DISTRICT

EASTERN

DISTRICT

0 40 mi

District or Island

(County Equivalent)

EASTERN

DISTRICT

±
# C_2013157EN.01000101.xml

| 4.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6898 — RAG Stiftung/Evonik Industries)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 157/01

On 2 May 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6898. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6898. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---