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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,906,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,258
<INVENTORY>                                     21,672
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,255,514
<PP&E>                                         499,892
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,917,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          887,362
<BONDS>                                        205,092
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,324,273
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,545,179)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,917,048
<SALES>                                        287,164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               287,164
<CGS>                                          193,869
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,229,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (658,461)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,283,391)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,283,391)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .209
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .209
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

**INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT**

    We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of Vicom, Incorporated (Company) on Form S-1 of our reports as follows: 

Vicom,Incorporated and Subsidiaries, dated February 23, 2000, except for Note 15, as to which the date is April 3, 2000. 
Ekman, Inc.,d/b/a Corporate Technologies, dated February 16, 2000. 

    Allthe above reports appear in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus. 

    Ouraudits of the financial statements referred to in our aforementioned reports also included the financial statement schedule of Vicom, Incorporated listed in Schedule II.This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule,when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein. 

LURIE,BESIKOF, LAPIDUS & CO., LLP 

Minneapolis,Minnesota
EXHIBIT

| (1)   | The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 5, 2011 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Renato Cataldo       |   | /s/Dale Heins                         |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Renato Cataldo          |   | Dale Heins                            |
| President and           |   | Executive Vice President, Finance,    |
| Chief Executive Officer |   | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
---

---

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20549

---

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): August 29, 2000

---

COMMUNITY FIRST BANKSHARES, INC.(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)

0-19368(Commission File Number)

46-0391436(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)520 Main Avenue
Fargo, North Dakota(Address of principal
executive offices)



58124(Zip Code)


Registrant's
telephone number, including area code:(701) 298-5600

---

---

---

## 

Item
1.  Not Applicable

Item
2.  Not Applicable.

Item
3.  Not Applicable.

Item
4.  Not Applicable.

Item
5.  Other Events.

After
receiving approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Company merged its 11 existing national bank charters into one national bank charter to increase
efficiency and performance. The charter consolidation became effective on August 29, 2000. The affected charters were Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming. South Dakota will maintain a separate state charter due to the Company's insurance business.

Item
6.  Not Applicable.

Item
7.  Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.

Exhibit 99.1  Press
Release dated August 29, 2000

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.

|                         |  | COMMUNITY FIRST BANKSHARES, INC.
|------------------------ |  | --------------------------------
|Dated: September 5, 2000 |  | By                              

2

---

## QuickLinks
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TheHoward Hughes Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Weinreb, in my capacity as ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ David Weinreb       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| David Weinreb           |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| November 23, 2010  |   |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH VINCENT PALOVICH, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JO GENTRY, Warden, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72065

ORDER*

Application to File Second or Successive

Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Argued and Submitted July 19, 2019

San Francisco, California

Before: MURPHY,** PAEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Palovich has applied for permission to file a second or successive 

habeas corpus application to present a claim that a jury instruction given during his 

trial violated his right to due process by eliminating an element of first-degree 

murder. See Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 521 (1979). 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Michael R. Murphy, United States Circuit Judge for the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

NOV 14 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

“The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive 

application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing 

that the application satisfies the requirements of [' 2244(b)].” 28 U.S.C. ' 2244 

(b)(3)(C); see also 9th Cir. Rule 22-3(a)(4) (providing that an application to file a 

second or successive ' 2254 petition must “state how the requirements of section[] 

2244(b) . . . have been satisfied”). Section 2244(b)(2) provides as follows:

A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application 

. . . that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed 

unless C

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of 

constitutional law . . . or

(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been 

discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) 

the facts underlying the claim . . . would be sufficient to establish by 

clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no 

reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the 

underlying offense.

28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(2). Palovich has made neither showing. He does not assert 

that the factual predicate for his claim could not have been discovered previously. 

Nor has he shown that his claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law. The 

Supreme Court cases on which he relies, Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 

(2016) and Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), do not require 

retroactive application of a change in state law, like that adopted by the Nevada 
3

Supreme Court in Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700 (Nev. 2000), to cases on collateral 

review. 

The application is DENIED.
# C_2012230EN.01000501.xml

| 1.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

31 July 2012

2012/C 230/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2284 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 96,03 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4407 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78395 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,3590 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2014 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,4215 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,255 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 278,94 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1050 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5800 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1990 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,1675 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2312 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5246 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5166 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5278 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 387,85 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,0556 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8147 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5175 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 606,59 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,8455 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,244 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,5270 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,670 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5117 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,2856 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,3670 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2284

JPY

Japanese yen

96,03

DKK

Danish krone

7,4407

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78395

SEK

Swedish krona

8,3590

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2014

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,4215

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,255

HUF

Hungarian forint

278,94

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1050

RON

Romanian leu

4,5800

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1990

AUD

Australian dollar

1,1675

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2312

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5246

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5166

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5278

KRW

South Korean won

1 387,85

ZAR

South African rand

10,0556

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8147

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5175

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 606,59

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,8455

PHP

Philippine peso

51,244

RUB

Russian rouble

39,5270

THB

Thai baht

38,670

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5117

MXN

Mexican peso

16,2856

INR

Indian rupee

68,3670

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2015253EN.01000601.xml

| 1.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/6

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya apply

(2015/C 253/05)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):

1

The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (2).

2

The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director-General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is the Unit 1C of DG C that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DGC 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DGC 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (3).

3

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

---

(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 58, 3.3.2011, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.

3

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION February 9, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with NRDC to discuss the EPA/NHTS A Proposed Rulemaking for

Greenhouse Gas and CAFE Standards for Light-Duty Ve hicles

FROM: Robin Moran Senior Policy Advisor
Assessment and Standards Division

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472

This memo documents a meeting held on November 12, 2009, between representatives of Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and EPA to discuss EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles. Th e discussion topic was advanced technology vehicle credits, specifically the issues of emissio ns for electric vehicles and the electric portion of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and accounting for upstream emissions from the electricity generation sector. NRDC’s technical comments were captured in their public comments to the docket on the proposed rule.

The meeting attendees included the following:

Luke Tonachel, NRDC David Ganss, EPA Venu Ghanta, EPA Donald Kopinski, EPA Aaron Hula, EPA Zoltan Jung, EPA William Charmley, EPA Robin Moran, EPA
#### John A. PATNIK, Jr., Appellant, v. Roberta A. PATNIK, Appellee.

No. 77-2397.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 12, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1978.

John E. Bassett, North Miami, for appellant.

Gus Efthimiou, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant/respondent/husband challenges the proprietary of various financial and property provisions contained in a “final judgment of dissolution of marriage” and an “order on motion for rehearing and modification” which, *inter alia,*dissolved his twenty year marriage from appellee/peti-tioner/wife; awarded appellee custody of the couple’s two minor children; provided for the payment, by appellant, of child support; awarded appellee permanent alimony and exclusive possession of the marital domicile; and required that appellant pay taxes and make mortgage payments on the home.

We have carefully reviewed the record and have determined that there was competent, substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s rulings. Accordingly, no abuse of discretion having been shown, the “final judgment of dissolution of marriage” and “order on motion for rehearing and modification” are hereby affirmed. *Herzog v. Herzog,*346 So.2d 56 (Fla. 1977); *Shaw*v. *Shaw,*334 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1976).

Affirmed.
#### Elaine PEPPER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-977.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 10, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1967.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Marvin J. Emory, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from two separate convictions for unlawful possession of marijuana and one conviction for unlawful possession and sale of marijuana. The main point urged is that the court erred in admitting evidence obtained at the time of the arrest. This point, if effective, would effect the conviction in the Criminal Court of Record, Case No. 66-555, which was for unlawful possession of marijuana on December 29, 1965.

The facts of this case fully support the finding of the trial judge that the arrest was not a ruse in order to secure evidence. The record shows that the action taken by the officers was in their regular course of police work and was based upon sufficient probable cause. See Pflegl v. State, Fla. 1957, 93 So.2d 75; Herring v. State, Fla. App.1960, 121 So.2d 807.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.3


 





SECOND AMENDMENT TO


PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT
TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) dated the 26th day of December, 2013, by and between THE AVENTINE GREENVILLE,
LLC (“Seller”) and TRADE STREET OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, LP (“Purchaser”).


 


W I T N E S S E T H :


 


WHEREAS, Seller and
Purchaser entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement with an Effective Date of December 5, 2013, as amended by that
certain First Amendment to Purchase Agreement dated December 11, 2013 (collectively “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties
desire to amend certain terms and provisions of the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the parties intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:


 


1.                 
The recitations heretofore set forth are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.


 


2.                 
The Agreement as amended by this Amendment remains in full force and effect. To the extent of any inconsistency between
the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall supersede and control to the extent
of such inconsistency. Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.


 


3.                 
The definition of “Inspection Date” in Section 3.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to mean January 3, 2014.


 


4.                 
This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed, shall be deemed an original
and all of which shall be deemed one and the same instrument. Facsimile transmission signatures of this Amendment shall be deemed
to be original signatures.


 


 


[space intentionally left
blank]


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


 





	 	SELLER:
	 	 	 	 
	 	THE AVENTINE GREENVILLE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	Flournoy Development Company, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, its Manager
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	/s/ Thomas H. Flournoy
	 	 	 	Thomas H. Flournoy, its President
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	PURCHASER:
	 	 
	 	TRADE STREET OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, LP, a Delaware limited partnership
	 	 	 	 
	 	By: Trade Street OP GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its general partner
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	Trade Street Residential, Inc., a 

Maryland corporation,  its sole
    member
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	/s/ Michael Baumann
	 	 	Name:	Michael Baumann
	 	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer