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





---

close


Uruguay
 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 2013 to 2022
 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 7, 2018 a0209

Order 

Clerk

March 7, 2018

156738

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 156738

COA: 331620 

Macomb CC: 2015-000548-FH

KIMBERLY ANITRA MURPHY,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Order entered October 10, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00874
- CV JAMES DAMONTE, Appellant

V. HALLMARK FINANCIAL S ERVICES, INC. AND HE ATH XS, LLC, Appell ee s

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18
- 05976



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s October 9, 2018 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief. We GRANT the motion and e xtend the time to November 5, 2018

.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Mark Shapiro, certify that:

   1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Central Parking
Corporation;

   2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

   3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

   4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

   b) 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, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

   c) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

   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 function):

   a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
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 control over
financial reporting.

Date: February 9, 2005              By: /s/ MARK SHAPIRO
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Mark Shapiro
                                        Senior Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.61



AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED 
HERCULES DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


WHEREAS, Ashland Inc. (“Ashland”), as sponsor of the Amended and Restated Hercules Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), maintains the Plan for the benefit of employees eligible to participate therein; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article IV, Section 5, of the Charter of the Personnel and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Ashland Inc., said Personnel and Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) has retained authority to amend or transfer any of the benefit plans of Ashland and its subsidiaries and affiliates that are more than 50% owned by Ashland; and
WHEREAS, the Committee now desires to amend the Plan to provide Ashland the discretionary authority to make a limited cashout from the Plan to participants.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Plan is amended, effective upon execution, as follows.




		
	I.
	The following paragraph is added to end of the section of the Plan titled “Distributions” as follows:




Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall have the discretion to make a limited cashout of a participant’s account pursuant to section 1.409A-3(j)(4)(v) of the Treasury Regulations to such participant so long as:
    
(1)    such participant’s entire interest in his or her accounts in the Plan and all aggregate plans as defined under section 1.409A-1(c)(2) of the Treasury Regulations is terminated and liquidated; and


(2)    the amount to be distributed from the Plan, when added together with the distributable amounts from all aggregate plans as defined under section 1.409A-1(c)(2) of the Treasury Regulations, does not exceed the applicable dollar amount under Code Section 402(g)(1)(B).


		
	II.
	In all other respects the Plan shall remain unchanged.






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Ashland Global Holdings Inc. has caused its duly authorized representative to execute the Plan, this 30th day of September, 2016.
ASHLAND GLOBAL HOLDINGS INC.
/s/ Peter J. Ganz
By:                                                       
Peter J. Ganz
Senior Vice President, General Counsel
and Secretary
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 23


                       Independent Auditors' Consent
                       -----------------------------

The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Del Laboratories, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
33-27777) on Form S-8 and Registration Statement (No. 33-64777) on Form S-8
of Del Laboratories, Inc. of our report dated February 10, 1998, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Del Laboratories, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the related consolidated statements of
earnings, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and the related schedule which
report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of Del
Laboratories, Inc.

Jericho, New York
March 27, 1998
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vodavi Technology,
Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David
A. Husband, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best
knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ David A. HusbandDavid A. Husband
Chief Financial Officer
April 27, 2004
 20
# C_2014180EN.01000801.xml

| 13.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/8

---

Intermediate update

of the correction coefficients applicable from 1 January 2014 to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union

(2014/C 180/07)

| Place of employment | Correction Coefficient for remuneration |
| --- | --- |
| CY | Nicosia | 80,8 |

Place of employment

Correction Coefficient for remuneration

CY

Nicosia

80,8

| Country | Correction Coefficient for pensions |
| --- | --- |
| DK | Denmark | 126,3 |

Country

Correction Coefficient for pensions

DK

Denmark

126,3

---
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

SLSCO, Ltd. ) ASBCA No. 63152

)

Under Contract No. W912PP-19-C-0018 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Dean W. Baxtresser, Esq.

David R. Hazelton, Esq.

Walter A. Perry, Esq.

 Latham & Watkins LLP

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Joseph C. Mobbley, Esq.

Joseph E. Merrion, Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorneys

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Phoenix

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: September 6, 2022

DAVID B. STINSON

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63152, Appeal of SLSCO, Ltd., 

rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: September 6, 2022

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Order entered April 22, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00235-CV

ANTONIO RENAULD HENDERSON, Appellant

V.

VICTRON STORES, LP D/B/A GATEWAY #24 SHELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-10-03771

ORDER

The Court has before it the District Clerk’s April 17, 2013 request for an extension of 

time in which to file the clerk’s record. The Court GRANTS the request and ORDERS the 

District Clerk to file the clerk’s record within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE
1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1011

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Steven Curtis McIntosh, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 23, 2003

 Filed: May 29, 2003 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Steven Curtis McIntosh appeals the district court’s1

 judgment denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The district court granted a certificate of

appealability on the issue whether equitable tolling should extend the limitations

period in this case. 
-2-

Mr. McIntosh’s conviction became final upon completion of direct review

when the Supreme Court denied certiorari on May 14, 2001, and he had one year from

that date to file his section 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(1)-(4) (absent

impediment created by governmental action, newly recognized right, or newly

discovered facts, one-year period of limitation runs from date on which judgment of

conviction becomes final); Sweet v. Delo, 125 F.3d 1144, 1155 (8th Cir. 1997)

(Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari fixes point of finality of conviction), cert.

denied, 523 U.S. 1010 (1998); see also United States v. Marcello, 212 F.3d 1005,

1008 (7th Cir.) (conviction became final, thus triggering one-year limitations period

for § 2255 motion, on date Supreme Court denied certiorari petition following direct

appeal, and not on date denial of certiorari was filed and docketed with court of

appeals), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 878 (2000); Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339,

1342-43 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (without deciding point at which conviction

becomes final, holding that appellate court’s receipt of denial of certiorari does not

fix finality). 

At the earliest, Mr. McIntosh filed his motion on May 29, 2002, see Moore v.

United States, 173 F.3d 1131, 1135 (8th Cir. 1999) (extending application of prisonmailbox rule to pro se § 2255 motions), believing it was not due until June 22, 2002,

a year after the district court docketed the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari.

Because we agree with the district court that equitable tolling based on

Mr. McIntosh’s mistake about the deadline is not warranted, we affirm. See CrossBey v. Gammon, 322 F.3d 1012, 1015-16 (8th Cir. 2003) (unrepresented prisoner’s

lack of legal knowledge does not support equitable tolling); Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d

803, 805-06 (8th Cir. 2001) (equitable tolling affords otherwise time-barred petitioner

exceedingly narrow window of relief; equitable tolling is proper only when

extraordinary circumstances beyond prisoner’s control make it impossible to file

petition on time).
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000025757
<NAME> CROMPTON & KNOWLES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1998
<CASH>                                          12,104
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  173,668
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,768
<INVENTORY>                                    334,562
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               597,756
<PP&E>                                         473,403
<DEPRECIATION>                                 434,680
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,408,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          394,372
<BONDS>                                        646,857
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,733
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,408,893
<SALES>                                      1,796,119
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,796,119
<CGS>                                        1,146,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,577,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (158,938)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,209
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                298,716
<INCOME-TAX>                                   115,493
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            183,223
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (21,468)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   161,755
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.20<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.14
<FN>
<F1>Reflects Basic earnings per share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5397
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JULIO KEITH, a/k/a Poppy, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-94-57-3-H) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William L. Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Jane H. Jolly, Assistant United States Attorney, Ted F. Mitchell, Third Year Law Student, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Julio Keith seeks to appeal the 132-month sentence he received after his guilty plea to one count of distributing crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1981 & Supp. 1995). Because Keith waivedhis right to appeal a sentence within the guideline range established at the sentencing hearing, we dismiss the appeal. Keith's plea agreement contained a provision by which he agreed: To waive knowingly and expressly all rights, conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742, to appeal whatever sentence is imposed, including any issues that relate to the establishment of the Guideline range, reserving only the right to appeal from an upward departure from the Guideline range that is established at sentencing. This provision was brought to Keith's attention during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy before he entered his guilty plea. Keith does not address the waiver in his brief; however, the record discloses that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. We have previously held that a knowing and voluntary waiver of appellate rights is valid and enforceable. United States v. Marin , 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Wessells , 936 F.2d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 1991). We therefore 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
# C_2013157EN.01000201.xml

| 4.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/2

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

0,50 % on 1 June 2013

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

3 June 2013

2013/C 157/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3008 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,37 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4542 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85180 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,5723 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2456 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5970 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,753 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 295,40 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7015 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2666 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4080 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,4605 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3457 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3455 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0989 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6268 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6367 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 467,09 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,9658 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9761 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5415 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 753,98 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0312 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,709 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,5710 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,622 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7752 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5982 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,8140 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3008

JPY

Japanese yen

130,37

DKK

Danish krone

7,4542

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85180

SEK

Swedish krona

8,5723

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2456

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5970

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,753

HUF

Hungarian forint

295,40

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7015

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2666

RON

Romanian leu

4,4080

TRY

Turkish lira

2,4605

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3457

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3455

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0989

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6268

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6367

KRW

South Korean won

1 467,09

ZAR

South African rand

12,9658

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9761

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5415

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 753,98

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0312

PHP

Philippine peso

54,709

RUB

Russian rouble

41,5710

THB

Thai baht

39,622

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7752

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5982

INR

Indian rupee

73,8140

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

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

2

Source:

---