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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF U.S.
BIOSCIENCE, INC. FOR THE PERIOD(S) INDICATED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>          0000847562
<NAME>         US BIOSCIENCE
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
<CURRENCY>     $00,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996   
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                      13,054,800     
<SECURITIES>                                23,621,800      
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,183,200        
<ALLOWANCES>                                   257,000      
<INVENTORY>                                  2,595,000     
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,035,900     
<PP&E>                                      11,151,600      
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,076,400     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,111,100      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,909,600      
<BONDS>                                      3,307,200              
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0              
<PREFERRED>                                          0             
<COMMON>                                       228,800     
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,665,500     
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,111,100     
<SALES>                                     10,785,200     
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,464,000      
<CGS>                                        2,955,700     
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,613,800              
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0              
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0        
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             537,600     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (9,687,400)             
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0     
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (9,687,400)             
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0              
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0              
<CHANGES>                                            0     
<NET-INCOME>                                (9,687,400)         
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.43)         
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.43)              
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. LAVET I. HENDERSON, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 806 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 9th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
#### Larry KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BI-54.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 15, 1986.

Larry King, pro se.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion for correction of sentence based upon his assertion that the sentence violated the plea agreement is AFFIRMED. The trial court has attached to its order the transcripts of the plea and sentencing hearings, which conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief. Appellant may not in the future assert this ground in a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

THOMPSON, ZEHMER and BAR-FIELD, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 4.7

150 years                                                             STANDARD
    with you                                                         CHARTERED


Date:          22nd April 2003
Our ref:       C&I/LC/TEAM3/BKK


CONFIDENTIAL
------------

Bonso Electronics Ltd.
Units 1106-1110
11/F., Star House
3 Salisbury Road
Tsimshatsui
Kowloon

Attn.: Mr. Anthony So/Ms. Cathy Pang
------------------------------------

Dear Sirs,

                   BANKING FACILITIES: BONSO ELECTRONICS LTD.

We refer to our letter dated 5th March 2001 setting out the facilities made
available to your company (the "Company"), as varied by our letters dated 11th
May 2001, 17th May 2002 and 8th April 2003.

Following our recent discussions, we confirm that the terms of the facilities
have been further varied as follows:


INTEREST, COMMISSIONS AND FEES

Under this paragraph, interest on Trade Finance Facilities is revised to read as
follows with immediate effect:-

Export bills will be discounted and import bills will be financed at HIBOR plus
2% peg annum for Hong Kong Dollar bills (previously at our standard bills
finance rate minus 0.5% per annum), at LIBOR plus 2% per annum for United
States Dollar bills and at our standard bills finance rates plus 0.25% per annum
for other foreign currency bills. All past due bills shall bear interest at 4%
per annum above the rates charged on your regular bills outstandings.

This letter will amend the terms of the existing facility letters which the Bank
has issued to the Company as previously varied, as set out above. In all other
respects, the terms of the existing facility letters as previously varied will
remain in full force and effect. This letter will be governed by Hong Kong SAR
law.






Standard Chartered Bank
Corporate & Institutional Banking
Credit Operations

11 th Floor Standard Chartered Tower
388 Kwun Tong Road Kwun Tong Hong Kong

Incorporated in England with limited liability by Royal Charter 1853
The principal office of the Company is situated in England at 1 Aldermanbury
Square London EC2V 79B Reference Number ZC 18
================================================================================

<PAGE>


Bonso Electronics Ltd.                                                    Page 2



If you have any queries, please contact our Senior Relationship Manager Ms. Rons
Fong, whose telephone number is 2821-1953.

We are pleased to be of service to you and take this opportunity to thank you
again for your custom.

Yours faithfully,
For and on behalf of STANDARD CHARTERED BANK


/s/  Anita Poon
----------------------------------
     Anita Poon
     Senior Credit Documentation Manager

 AP/ky

================================================================================
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Esteban MARTINEZ, Jr. and Victor Hugo Gomez.

No. 88-KK-0166.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Gomez, Victor Hugo; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and remedial writs; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, *427No. 86-CR52994; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW87-0733.

Denied.
#### S. MILLER and Grace Borne v. Allen BORNE.

No. 86-C-2510.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Borne, Allen; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-5556; Parish of Orleans, 1st City Court of New Orleans, Div. “B”, No. P-261-479.

Prior report: La.App., 496 So.2d 1084.

Denied.

MARCUS, J., would grant the writ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40090

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REGINALDO URIBE, also known as Keno,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:94-CR-82-2

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Reginaldo Uribe appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute marihuana, contending that the district court ab used its discretion in refusing to

affor d him a meaningful opportunity to refute the presentence report, and that it erred in1 United States v. Henderson

, 19 F.3d 917 (5th Cir.), cert

. denied

, 115 S.Ct. 207 (1994).

2 U.S.S.G. § 6B1.4(d), p.s.; United States v. Woods

, 907 F.2d 1540 (5th Cir. 1990), cert

. denied , 498 U.S. 1070 (1991).

3 United States v. Higdon

, 832 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1 987), cert

. d enied

, 484 U.S. 1075

(1988).

2 ignoring the drug quantity stipulated in the plea agreement. He also contends that his

attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.

Our review of the record and the briefs of t he parties lends inexorably to the

conclusion that Uribe’s due process rights were not violated and that the district court did

not abuse its discretion in the conduct of the sentencing hearing. 1 Further, the district court

may base a sentence on conduct or quantities of drugs apart from that charged in the

indictment and stipulated by the parties at the time of the guilty plea. 2 Finally, we decline

to address Uribe’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. This complaint was not

presented to the district court and th e record before us does not permit evaluation of its

merits. 3

AFFIRMED.
Page 1 

### Notes from Call with Vectren Corporation on January 21 , 201 4

On Tu esday, January 21 , 201 4
, ERG contacted the Vectren Corporation to discuss what appeared to be a discrepancy between information provided regarding the questionnaire responses for the A.B.
Brown Station (Plant ID 8502) and the Vectren Corporation’s comments on the proposed steam electric
effluent limitatio ns guidelines and standards (ELGs) (EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4317

- A1) . In the questionnaire responses, the company noted that the A.B. Brown Station had a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater flow rate of 1.242 MGD coming from the truck bay wash and the b elt filter wash area. However, in the company’s comments on the proposed ELGs, the company stated that the plant did not discharge any FGD wastewater. ERG asked Lisa Messinger, the primary technical contact for the questionnaire, about this discrepancy. Ms. Messinger provided ERG with the following information :

The FGD wastewater generated from the truck bay wash area and the belt filter wash area are transferred to the ash pond . The plant recirculates ash pond water for use in various plant processes, including the FGD thickener tank, belt filter wash waters, bottom ash sluice water, and general plant wash down hoses such as those used in the FGD truck loading area. During normal operation, all ash pond water is reused at the plant; it is only necessary to discharge from the ash pond following or in preparation for heavy or prolonged precipitation events. In terms of the large flow rate for the belt filter wash water, the plant continually washes the underside of the belt filter with fire hoses using as h pond water as the source of the wash water. This operation results in a large volume of water that is transferred to the ash pond but is ultimately returned to the FGD system for use as belt filter wash water.

Ms. Messinger provided ERG with additiona l information regarding the FGD wastewater flow rates via email after the call. See Appendices A through D of these notes for the additional information provided. Based on the information provided, ERG determined that the A.B. Brown plant does not
discha rge FGD wastewater to surface water.
```
                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                         ____________________


No. 97-2095

                          DONALD J. MCCLAIN,

                         Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                  v.

                      MICHELLE FUSEYMORE, ET AL.,

                        Defendants, Appellees.
                                   
                         ____________________

             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

               [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]

                         ____________________

                                Before

                        Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,
                            Circuit Judges.

                         ____________________

    Donald J. McClain on brief pro se.
    Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and  Annette C. Benedetto,
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.


                         ____________________

                            April 25, 1998
                         ____________________



           Per Curiam.  The district court dismissed the 
    complaint under 42 U.S.C. � 1983 for a failure to state a
    claim.  The complaint seeks declaratory and other relief
    against the state parole authorities for alleged constitutional
    violations in failing to take action on a pending parole
    revocation warrant, delaying or denying a parole hearing, and 
    miscalculating plaintiff's parole eligibility date.  
             While the appeal was pending, this court decided, in
    White v. Gittens, 121 F.3d 803 (1st Cir. 1997), that a � 1983
    action challenging the validity of a state parole revocation on
    constitutional grounds is not cognizable in federal court
    unless and until the parole revocation "has been reversed on
    direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by
    a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or
    called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of
    habeas corpus."  Id. at 806 (quoting, and extending to parole
    revocations, the rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487
    (1994)).   The same rule applies to claims challenging a denial
    of parole, and plaintiff's other challenges to the validity or
    duration of his confinement.  Id. at 805.
             Accordingly, we need not reach the merits of
    plaintiff's pleading.  Id. at 806.  The judgment of dismissal
    is affirmed and modified to reflect that the dismissal is
    without prejudice.
```
June 24, 2015

Mr. Garrett Jernagan

10005 Carbondale St. Bakersfield, CA 93314

Dear Mr.Jernagan:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 8, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2150), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
50237.

#### DALTON v. VANDERKOOI et al.

Argued February 4, 1975

Decided March 4, 1975

Rehearing denied March 28, 1975

Robert L. Dalton, *pro se.*

*Ken Stula,*for appellees.

Quillian, Judge.

1. It is not error for the trial judge to grant a continuance prior to the date the case is set for trial. Code § 81-1419.

2. The awarding of reasonable attorney fees and expenses because of the defendant’s failure to comply with Code Ann. § 81A-130 (g) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 641; 1967, pp. 226, 233; 1972, pp. 510, 515) was not erroneous.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pannell, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.*
----

**Exhibit 13.1**

      In connection with the Report  of Dynamic Oil & Gas, Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the twelvemonth  period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wayne J. Babcock, President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

      The Report fully complies with  the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of  1934; and 

      The information contained in  the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ Wayne J. Babcock                                Wayne J. Babcock President and Chief Executive Officer 

 May 17, 2004 

      A signed original of this written  statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Dynamic Oil & Gas,  Inc. and will be retained by Dynamic Oil & Gas, Inc. and furnished to the  Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 294 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 294

 Designating the month of October 2000 as ``Children's Internet Safety 
                                Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2000

   Mr. Abraham (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Helms, Mr. 
 Conrad, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
Murkowski, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Gregg, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Bingaman, 
   Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Grams, Mr.  Stevens, Mr. 
   Brownback, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Biden, Mr. Gramm, and 
 Mr. Akaka) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

                           September 15, 2000

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating the month of October 2000 as ``Children's Internet Safety 
                                Month''.

Whereas the Internet is one of the most effective tools available for purposes 
        of education and research and gives children the means to make friends 
        and freely communicate with peers and family anywhere in the world;
Whereas the new era of instant communication holds great promise for achieving 
        better understanding of the world and providing the opportunity for 
        creative inquiry;
Whereas it is vital to the well-being of children that the Internet offer an 
        open and responsible environment to explore;
Whereas access to objectionable material, such as violent, obscene, or sexually 
        explicit adult material may be received by a minor in unsolicited form;
Whereas there is a growing concern in all levels of society to protect children 
        from objectionable material;
Whereas the technological option for parents or guardians to filter, block, or 
        review objectionable Internet material is available and effective;
Whereas information on Internet filtering or blocking technology is unavailable 
        to many parents or guardians; and
Whereas the Internet is a positive educational tool and should be seen in such a 
        manner rather than as a vehicle for entities to make objectionable 
        materials available to children: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates October 2000 as ``Children's Internet Safety 
        Month'' and supports its official status on the Nation's 
        promotional calendar; and
            (2) supports parents and guardians in promoting the 
        creative development of children by encouraging the use of the 
        Internet in a safe, positive manner with the aid of Internet 
        filtering and blocking technologies.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE ex rel. Anthony BOWMAN v. Hon. L.J. HYMEL, Judge, Parish of East Baton Rouge.

No. 88-KH-0109.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Bowman, Anthony; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 8-83-585.

Granted and transferred to Court of Appeal solely for consideration.
## Pay.gov - Online Payment YagelotI

Online Payment Step 3: Confirm Payment Thank you. Your transaction has been successfully completed. Pay.gov Tracking Information

Application Name: TSCA User Fees Pay.gov Tracking ID: 25F9QJAM Agency Tracking ID: 74601811287 Transaction Date and Time: 04/15/2014 10:20 EDT Payment Summary Address Information Account Information Account Holder Gerald Larson Card Type: American Express

Name: Card Number: ****`"`*"""1020 11 East Steel Billing Address: Road Billing Address 2:

City: Morrisville State / Province: PA Zip / Postal Code: 19067

Country: USA 

## 11213

Payment Information Payment Amount: $100.00 Transaction Date 04/15/2014 and Time: 10:20 EDT



## https://www.pay.gov/paygov/payments/authorizePlasticCardPayment.html 4/15/2014
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 6 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 6

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

  Mr. Hollings (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Bryan) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be valid only if 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within 7 years after the date of final passage of this joint 
resolution:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Congress shall have power to set reasonable limits on 
the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of 
expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a 
candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal 
office.
    ``Section 2. A State shall have power to set reasonable limits on 
the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of 
expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a 
candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, State or 
local office.
    ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce 
this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```