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 African American Business Ownership En Español
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-R.15SP **Contact:**  Briana Kaya Public Information Office
301-763-3030/3762 (fax)
 PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA:  MARTES, 8 DE FEBRERO DE 2011 La Oficina del Censo Revela un Aumento de 105 Por Ciento en el Número de Empresas Cuyos Propietarios son de Raza Negra en el Área Metropolitana de Dallas El número de empresas cuyos propietarios son de raza negra en el área estadística  metropolitana de Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas, aumentó a 56,309 empresas en el 2007 de 27,514 empresas en el 2002, lo cual representa uu aumento de 104.7 por ciento, anunció hoy la Oficina del Censo de los Estados Unidos. Durante el mismo período, los ingresos generados por dichas empresas aumentaron 37.5 por cient  con $3.0 mil millones. A nivel nacional, el número de empresas cuyos propietarios son de raza negra aumentó a 1.9 millones de empresas, un aumento de 60.5 por ciento, y las ventas de dichas empresas aumentaron a $137.5 mil millones, un aumento de 55.1 por ciento. Las industrias en el área metropolitana con el mayor número de empresas cuyos propietarios son de raza negra incluyen servicios de reparación, maintenimiento, personales y de lavandería (11,453 empresas); servicios de administración y apoyo y manejo de desperdicios y remediación (7,677 empresas); y cuidado de salud y asistencia social (7,183 empresas). Dichos datos provienen de la Encuesta de Empresarios de 2007, la cual forma parte del Censo Económico de 2007. La encuesta provee información detallada cada cinco años sobre empresas cuyos propietarios son de raza negra, incluyendo el número de firmas, ventas e ingresos, número de empleados remunerados y nómina anual para estados, condados, ciudades y áreas metropolitanas.  La Encuesta de Empresarios se levanta cada cinco años como parte del censo económico. La encuesta de 2007 recopiló datos de una muestra de más de 2.3 millones de empresas. Los datos recopilados en la muestra de una encuesta están sujetos a la variabilidad de la muestra y a errores ajenos al muestreo. Los errores ajenos al muestreo se deben a errores en las respuestas, falta de respuestas o cobertura. Para más información acerca del diseño, metodología y limitaciones de los datos de la Encuesta de Empresarios, consulte  <https://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/methodology.html>. Nota del editor: Los datos están disponibles en  https://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/
 Microsoft® Word Viewer  free
 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
#### A. Mario Siciliano, Respondent, *v.*Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 18, 1953.

*204
      *John D. Gray*for appellant.

*Leonard Rommel*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Buie 121-a of the Buies of Civil Practice was not intended to change the rule prevailing in this department that general examinations before trial will, in the absence of special circumstances, not be permitted in matrimonial actions, actions for assault, and actions for other willful torts. The wording of the short form of notice of examination authorized by the rule indicates that the rule was intended to authorize examinations in negligence cases. The first sentence of the rule was intended only to eliminate the burden of proof rule, regardless of the nature of the action, but not to authorize general examinations before trial in all actions. These views are confirmed by the decisions of the Appellate Division of this department in *Tausik*v. *Tausik*(280 App. Div. 887), and *Field*v. *Field*(281 App. Div. 657), decided after the effective date of the rule, in which the Appellate Division in this department held that general examinations before trial in matrimonial actions will not be permitted as a matter of policy in the absence of special circumstances.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. .

Hammer, Hofstadter and Sohreiber, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.
#### Delma Lee HOPKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-33.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 4, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellant, v. Lillian C. GALLOWAY, Appellee.

No. 71-282.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 8, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 of Savvy Business Support, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Virginia K. Sourlis, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge and belief:





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.





Date:
      November 23, 2010
                
                By: /s/ VIRGINIA K.
  SOURLISName:
      Virginia K. Sourlis
                  Title:
      President and Director
                  (Principal
      Executive Officer,
                  Principal
      Financial Officer
                  and
      Principal Accounting
Officer)
#### George A. WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 72-584.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 28, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
262 La. 125

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Evariste V. WASHINGTON.

No. 52440.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 30, 1972.

In re: Evariste V. Washington applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas ‘Corpus.

Writ granted. The trial judge is ordered to reopen the bail hearing held May 4, 1972, and to permit the defendant to interrogate Deputy Sheriff Richard Rodriguez to determine if he has any information that corroborates defendant’s alibi, that is, that he was not present when the crime was committed or is not answerable therefor.

Because of the condition of the victim, or the possible effect of such interrogation on her, the trial judge may exercise his own discretion as to whether or not she may be called as a witness.

The trial judge is authorized to restrict the interrogation so it will not be used for general exploratory or discovery purposes, but only for the production of affirmative evidence of innocence of the defendant under his assertion that he was not present when the crime was committed.

After reception of the additional evidence, the trial judge will rule upon the bail application.

HAMLIN, J.,

is of the opinion that the ruling of the trial judge is correct. He has not abused his discretion.

SUMMERS, J.,

is also of the opinion that the ruling of the trial judge is correct. The reasons assigned for granting this writ without hearing in this unclear area of the law can only serve to further obscure the proper guidelines to which a trial judge must adhere.
#### Ernest L. SISTO et al., Appellants, v. Bonnie BRANTLEY et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1040.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 5, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County.

Appeal dismissed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2971

To permit the recovery of certain overpayments of tax on disability payments

received on severance from the military.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1993

Mr. MCCLOSKEY (for himself, Mr. JACOBS, and Mr. DARDEN) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To permit the recovery of certain overpayments of tax on

disability payments received on severance from the military.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISABILITY SEVER4 ANCE PAYMENTS.

5 (a) WAIVER OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—If—

6 (1) an individual included nontaxable military

7 disability severance payments in gross income for

8 any taxable year, and

9 (2) on the date of the enactment of this Act or

10 at any time during the 1-year period beginning on
2

•HR 2971 IH

1 such date of enactment, credit or refund of any over2 payment attributable to such inclusion is barred by

3 any law or rule of law (including res judicata),

4 credit or refund of such overpayment shall, nevertheless,

5 be allowed or made if claim therefor is filed before the

6 date 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

7 (b) SPECIAL RULES.—The provisions of subsection

8 (a) shall also permit the Secretary of the Treasury or his

9 delegate to credit or refund any overpayment referred to

10 in subsection (a) during the 1-year period referred to in

11 subsection (a) without any claim being filed therefor. To

12 the maximum extent possible, the Secretary shall allow or

13 make such credits or refunds without waiting for claims

14 to be filed.

15 (c) NONTAXABLE MILITARY DISABILITY SEVERANCE

16 PAYMENT.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘non17 taxable military disability severance payment’’ means any

18 lump-sum severance payment which—

19 (1) was received on account of personal injuries

20 or sickness resulting from active service in the

21 Armed Forces of the United States, and

22 (2) is excludable from gross income under sec23 tion 104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Æ
# C_2013319EN.01000401.xml

| 5.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/4

---

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

1

0,50 % on 1 November 2013

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 November 2013

2013/C 319/06

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3505 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,9 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4584 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84635 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8055 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,231 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,046 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,854 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 296,51 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7027 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1875 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4393 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7252 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4265 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4082 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,47 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6343 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6783 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 434,27 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,7113 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2381 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,62 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 308,2 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2923 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,548 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,6018 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,134 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0409 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6703 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 83,3645 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3505

JPY

Japanese yen

132,9

DKK

Danish krone

7,4584

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84635

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8055

CHF

Swiss franc

1,231

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,046

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,854

HUF

Hungarian forint

296,51

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7027

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1875

RON

Romanian leu

4,4393

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7252

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4265

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4082

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,47

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6343

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6783

KRW

South Korean won

1 434,27

ZAR

South African rand

13,7113

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2381

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,62

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 308,2

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2923

PHP

Philippine peso

58,548

RUB

Russian rouble

43,6018

THB

Thai baht

42,134

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0409

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6703

INR

Indian rupee

83,3645

---

(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:

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6238 STANFORD EL CHRISTOPHER MCPHERSON, JR., a/k/a Chris Rattis, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. HAYNES, Administrator, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:05-hc-00820-D) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanford El Christopher McPherson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Stanford El Christopher McPherson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McPherson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 50895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20238]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0129]

Notice of Availability (NOA) of an Environmental Assessment (EA) 
Addressing Implementation of the Real Property Master Plan at Defense 
Distribution Center Susquehanna, Pennsylvania

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Availability (NOA) of an Environmental Assessment 
(EA) Addressing Implementation of the Real Property Master Plan at 
Defense Distribution Center Susquehanna, Pennsylvania.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) announces the availability 
of an Environmental Assessment (EA) Addressing Implementation of the 
Real Property Master Plan at Defense Distribution Center Susquehanna, 
Pennsylvania. The EA has been prepared as required under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1969). In addition, the EA complies 
with DLA Regulation 1000.22. DLA has determined that the proposed 
action would not have a significant impact on the human environment 
within the context of NEPA. Therefore, the preparation of an 
environmental impact statement is not required.

DATES: Public comments will be accepted on or before September 25, 
2014. Comments received by the end of the 30-day period will be 
considered when preparing the final version of the document.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to one of the following:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark 
Center Drive, East Tower, 2nd floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-
3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ira Silverberg at (703) 767-0705 
during normal business hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m. (EST) or by email: Ira.Silverberg@dla.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EA is available electronically at http://www.dla.mil/InstallationSupport/Documents/DEA_Susquehanna%20RPMP_070814.pdf. Hardcopies of the EA also are available at the Red Land 
Community Library, 48 Robin Hood Drive, Etters, PA 17319, and the 
Fairview Township Municipal Building, 599 Lewisberry Road, New 
Cumberland, PA 17070.

    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2014-20238 Filed 8-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derek Reed, Appellant.

[722 NYS2d 148]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J., at hearing; Dorothy Cropper, J., at plea and sentence), rendered February 16, 1999, convicting defendant of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. On appeal, defendant contends that when the police discovered drugs by opening a brown paper bag that had fallen from his clothing during a strip search in a bathroom at the precinct, they were conducting an unlawful warrantless search of a closed container. This claim is unpreserved because it was not raised at the hearing and because, contrary to defendant’s assertion on appeal, the court made no express ruling on this issue *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Turriago,*90 NY2d 77); we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the search was incident to a lawful arrest: had defendant been determined to disrupt the arrest process, he could have gained access to a weapon or destroyed evidence in the bag, particularly since he was not handcuffed at the time the bag was discovered *(see, People v Wylie,*244 AD2d 247, 251, *lv denied*91 NY2d 946).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
#### Dennis R. GREENE, Petitioner, v. William R. HEIDTMAN, Sheriff, Palm Beach County, his Servants and Agents, Respondents.

No. 72-1126.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 15, 1972.

Dennis R. Greene, in pro. per.

No appearance for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Dennis R. Greene has filed herein a Petition for Habeas Corpus. The relief sought is the correction of a sentence allegedly wrongfully entered by the Criminal Court of Record for Palm Beach County, Florida, on 8 September 1972. It affirmatively appears from the petition that the petitioner has also filed in the trial court a motion to vacate the sentence under Rule 3.850 Cr.P.R., 33 F.S.A. Because of the foregoing, the petition is hereby denied *444without adjudicating- any issue sought to be raised by the petition before us.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Presidio Trust

# AGENCY:

The Presidio Trust.

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Presidio Trust Act, and in accordance with the Presidio Trust's bylaws, notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of Directors will be held commencing 4:30 p.m. on September 27, 2018, at the Officers' Club, 50 Moraga Avenue, Presidio of San Francisco, California.

The purposes of this meeting are: To provide the Board Chair's report; to provide the Chief Executive Officer's report; to receive presentations of concept proposals for development of the Fort Scott site; to receive public comment on the concept proposals for the Fort Scott site; to consider and potentially select which proposers will be invited to respond to a Request for Proposal for the Fort Scott site; and to receive public comment on other matters pertaining to Trust business.

Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, such as needing a sign language interpreter, should contact Mollie Matull at 415.561.5300 prior to September 18, 2018.

# DATES:

The meeting will begin at 4:30 p.m. on September 27, 2018.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Officers' Club, 50 Moraga Avenue, Presidio of San Francisco.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy J. Koch, General Counsel, the Presidio Trust, 103 Montgomery Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, California 94129-0052, Telephone: 415.561.5300.

Dated: August 9, 2018.

Nancy J. Koch,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2018-17662 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
-0191 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER PARIS STOCKDALE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 6, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 1 2021

11/01/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0191