alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10-K

| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and that |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March 24, 2011 |   | /s/Robert P. Ambrosini                               |
|----------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Date      |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
# FY12 Purchase Data

Agrucultural Marketing ServiceCommodity Purchases, Fiscal Year 2012October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012	

United States Department of Agrulture, Agricultural Marketing Service	Page &P or &N	For More Information Call: 202-720-4517
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00282-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.G., A CHILD

From the County Court at Law

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 85,553CCL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Clerk of this Court notified Appellants, Carla Arisano and Brock Brinkman, 

by letter dated January 13, 2015, that the clerk’s record in the above cause had 

apparently not been filed because Appellants had failed to pay or make arrangements 

to pay the clerk’s fee for preparation of the record. Appellants were further notified 

that if they desired to proceed with this appeal, they must pay or make arrangements to 

pay the clerk’s fee and notify this Court of the actions taken within 21 days after the 

date of the January 13, 2015 letter. Appellants were warned that if they failed to do so, 

this appeal might be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). On 

February 19, 2015, this Court again notified Appellants that the clerk’s record had not 
In the Interest of C.G., a Child Page 2

been filed because Appellants had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s 

fee for preparation of the record. Appellants were further notified that if they desired 

to proceed with this appeal, they must pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee 

and notify this Court of the actions taken within 21 days after the date of the February 

19, 2015 letter. Appellants were warned that if they failed to do so, this appeal would 

be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). More than 21 days 

have passed, and we have not been notified that Appellants have paid or made 

arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

 Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 16, 2015

[CV06]
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Board of Directors

Cagle’s, Inc. andSubsidiary

Atlanta, Georgia

 

We consent to theinclusion of our report dated June 5, 2009, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of Cagle’s, Inc. and Subsidiary as of March 28,2009 and March 29, 2008, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended March 28,2009, March 29, 2008 and March 31, 2007, and schedule, which reporthas been included in the Annual Report to Stockholders and in the Form 10-KAnnual Report of Cagle’s, Inc. and Subsidiary.

 

 
|                  | /s/ FROST, PLLC               |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------|
|                  | Certified Public  Accountants |
|                  |                          |
|                  |                          |
| Little Rock, Arkansas |                          |
| June 11, 2009    |                          |

 

----
#### People, Respondent, v Paul Wallace, Appellant.

—Motion for summary reversal denied with leave to renew in the event that the stenographic transcripts required to be filed pursuant to CPL 460.70 (1) are not filed with the Orleans County Clerk on or before August 6, 1991. Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
# C_2016203EN.01004001.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/40

---

Article 106a

1.   Article 7, Articles 13 to 19, Article 48(2) to (5), and Articles 49 and 50 of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 15, Articles 223 to 236, Articles 237 to 244, Article 245, Articles 246 to 270, Article 272, 273 and 274, Articles 277 to 281, Articles 285 to 304, Articles 310 to 320, Articles 322 to 325 and Articles 336, 342 and 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the Protocol on Transitional Provisions, shall apply to this Treaty.

2.   Within the framework of this Treaty, the references to the Union, to the ‘Treaty on European Union’, to the ‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’ or to the ‘Treaties’ in the provisions referred to in paragraph 1 and those in the protocols annexed both to those Treaties and to this Treaty shall be taken, respectively, as references to the European Atomic Energy Community and to this Treaty.

3.   The provisions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union shall not derogate from the provisions of this Treaty.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1398 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1398

    To delay the reimposition of the annual fee on health insurance 
                      providers until after 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2019

Mr. Bera (for himself, Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Marchant, Mr. 
 O'Halleran, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. David P. Roe 
 of Tennessee, Ms. Brownley of California, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Smith of Missouri, and Mr. Bucshon) introduced the following bill; 
which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition 
      to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To delay the reimposition of the annual fee on health insurance 
                      providers until after 2021.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Health Insurance Tax Relief Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. DELAY OF REIMPOSITION OF ANNUAL FEE ON HEALTH INSURANCE 
              PROVIDERS UNTIL AFTER 2021.

    (a) In General.--Section 9010(j)(3) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act is amended by striking ``December 31, 2019'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 2021''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to calendar years beginning after December 31, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
### RE: question on SeaTac project Nate Holloway to: Jesse Pritts 07/22/2010 03:40 PM History: This message has been replied to.

Jesse, I've filled out the corresponding pond info in the attached spreadsheet and double checked that the files I sent you earlier match. Basically our treatment systems are modular with control units that can handle between 1-5 54" sandfilters (500gpm nominal flow rate each), but each sandfilter has it's own PLC and corresponding data set Pond F = 2-500gpm systems Pond M = 1-500gpm system CDG Ponds = 5-500gpm systems South Pond = 4-500gpm system

I apologize for the confusion, we have since moved to a more comprehensive web-based data management system in an effort to avoid issues such as this If you need more information please let me know.

Nate 425-754-1541

-----Original Message----- From: Pritts.Jesse@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Pritts.Jesse@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:53 AM To: Nate Holloway Subject: RE: question on SeaTac projectHi NateDid a bit more digging this morning - take a look at the attached spreadsheet. What I need to know is which systems correspond to which ponds. I have six data files, but there is no information in five of these files that identifies which systems are associated with which pond on the site. Only one file (the site 3, January 2008 file) identifies the system as being at pond M. If you need the actual data files, I can email those to you. Just let me know.Thanks againJesse W. Pritts, P.E. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (4303T) Washington, DC 20460 tel 202-566-1038 fax 202-566-1053 www.epa.gov/waterscienceCourier/FedEx: 1301 Constitution Ave., NW Room 6233AA EPA West Washington, DC 20004 (See attached file: Site 1 2 3 systems and ponds.xlsx)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Garner, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of attempted aggravated assault on a police officer (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 110.00, 120.11); criminal use of a firearm in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.08 [1]; § 20.00); criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]; § 20.00); two counts of reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 120.20, 20.00); and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Defendant argues that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to suppress a postarrest statement made by him in response to a police officer’s inquiry "if he knew why he had been arrested.” We agree. The court, relying on *People v Stoesser*(53 NY2d 648), ruled that although defendant’s right to counsel had attached, his statement was not the result of custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent. Reliance on *Stoesser*is misplaced. That case involved a determination whether a statement was spontaneous or whether it was in *1029response to interrogation. There can be no doubt here that police questioning elicited the statement that defendant sought to suppress. However, we find the error harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt *(see, People v Sanders,*56 NY2d 51, 66-67, *rearg denied*57 NY2d 674).

Defendant also argues that criminal use of a firearm in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.08 [1]) is a non-inclusory concurrent offense of attempted assault on a police officer (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.11) and that, pursuant to *People v Brown*(67 NY2d 555, 560-561, *cert denied*479 US 1093), the former conviction should be dismissed. This issue is unpreserved and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice *(see, People v Bones,*103 AD2d 1012).

We also decline to reach in the interest of justice defendant’s unpreserved contention that, pursuant to *People v Gallagher*(69 NY2d 525), his convictions based on reckless and intentional conduct are inconsistent *(see, People v Carey,*151 AD2d 989, *lv denied*74 NY2d 806; *People v Dukett,*147 AD2d 938, *lv denied*73 NY2d 976).

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.—Attempted Aggravated Assault.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Den-man, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
XYNERGY CORPORATION
269 So. Beverly Drive, Suite 928
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
(310) 274-0086


Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail

May 2, 2002

Gil Ostrick
Oppenheim & Ostrick
4256 Overland Avenue
Culver City, CA 90230

Dear Gil:

As you know, we've retained another accountancy firm to conduct our audit for
the period ending December 31, 2001. As required by SEC rules, we are filing the
attached Form 8-K for notification.

We are therefore requesting that you write a letter to the Securities and
Exchange Commission stating whether you agree or disagree with the statements
made in Item 4 of the Form 8-K.

Please call me with any questions. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in
this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/

Raquel Zepeda
President

Enclosures
Exhibit 99.2



                Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended June 1, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/  Bobby J. Raines
-----------------------------------------
Bobby J. Raines
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary

Date:  August 12, 2002




                                       43
*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 **The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 ***The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, Senior United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEVORG BEGLARYAN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 06-73315

Agency No. A079-292-564

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 5, 2010** 

Pasadena, California

Before: FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge.*** 

We deny Beglaryan’s petition for review.

1. The inconsistency between Beglaryan’s oral testimony and his written

declaration with regard to his stated political affiliation undermines his credibility. 

FILED

NOV 18 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

This discrepancy, which Beglaryan did not adequately explain, goes to the heart of

Beglaryan’s claim that he suffered persecution as a result of his work to expose

human trafficking with the help of his political party. This unexplained

discrepancy supports the Immigration Judge's (IJ) adverse credibility finding.

2. At his hearing before the IJ, Beglaryan appeared slow to recall a crucial

encounter with the Armenian military, undercutting the plausibility of his

testimony. Only after his counsel’s repeated questioning did Beglaryan finally

recount a dramatic incident involving a TV appearance cut short by military

intervention. This hesitation also casts doubt on Beglaryan’s credibility and

supports the adverse credibility finding.

3. The IJ’s finding that Beglaryan’s testimony conflicted with the State

Department Country Report was not supported by substantial evidence. The

Country Report’s short description of a single attempt by the Armenian

government to prosecute human trafficking offenders does not imply that

Armenian prosecutorial authorities uniformly support efforts to end human

trafficking. Thus the Country Report does not undermine Beglaryan’s testimony. 

Given the inconsistency between Beglaryan's oral and written statements of

political party affiliation, as well as the manner in which he surfaced the television

station incident, we conclude that the decision of the Board of Immigration
3

Appeals to affirm the IJ’s denial of relief was supported by substantial evidence. 

See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1373 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1373

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To protect, for current and future generations, the watershed, 
  ecosystem, and cultural heritage of the Grand Canyon region in the 
               State of Arizona, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Grand Canyon Centennial Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.

    (a) Definition Of Map.--In this Act, the term ``Map'' means the map 
prepared by the Bureau of Land Management entitled ``Grand Canyon 
Centennial Protection Act'' and dated July 11, 2019.
    (b) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
approximately 1,006,545 acres of Federal land in the State of Arizona, 
generally depicted on the Map as ``Federal Mineral Estate to be 
Withdrawn'', including any land or interest in land that is acquired by 
the United States after the date of the enactment of this Act, are 
hereby withdrawn from--
            (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under 
        the public land laws;
            (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
            (3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, 
        and geothermal leasing laws.
    (c) Availability Of Map.--The Map shall be kept on file and made 
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 30, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1373

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To protect, for current and future generations, the watershed, 
  ecosystem, and cultural heritage of the Grand Canyon region in the 
               State of Arizona, and for other purposes.
```
|Exhibit 21                    
|------------------------------
|                              
|BULOVA CORPORATION            
|Subsidiaries of the Registrant
|December 31, 2002             





|                             | Organized under | Business
|---------------------------- | --------------- | --------
|Name of subsidiary           | the Laws of     | Names   
|________________             | ______________  | _______ 
|                             |                 |         
|Bulova Watch Company Limited | Canada          | Bulova  
|                             |                 |         

The names of certain subsidiaries which, if considered as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a "significant subsidiary" as defined in Regulation S-X have been omitted.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1197** 

TAIMUR MAHMUD , Petitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : December 13, 2013 Decided: January 7, 2014

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part ; denied in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

Taimur Mahmud, Petitioner Pro Se. Aimee J. Carmichael, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Nicole J. Thomas

- Dorris, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Taimur Mahmud, a native and citizen of Paki stan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider. We have
reviewed the administrative record and Mahmud’s contentions and find that we lack jurisdiction over the claims challenging the

Boa rd ’s order of November 5, 2012 from which Mahmud failed to
fi le a timely petition for review, as well as any claims that were not properly exhausted before the Board

. See Stone v. INS , 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995); 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (d)(1) (2012)

. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to those claims. Next, after reviewing Mahmud’s claims
relative to the instant order under review, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to
reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the
Board. See In re: Mahmud , (B.I.A. Jan. 14, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART ; DENIED IN PART
[COMMTOUCH LOGO]


================================================================================
To: Compaq Financial Services Corporation                     December 19, 2001
Attn: Rick Steffey and Gary Silverman
                                                              BY FAX
                                                              (908-898-4191)


Re: Settlement of Lease Issues

This  is to  document  the  principles  under  which  a more  formal  settlement
agreement will be prepared and signed by Compaq Financial  Services  Corporation
("Compaq"), Commtouch Inc. and Commtouch Software Ltd.

1.       In resolution of all outstanding and future claims of Compaq under that
         certain Master  Agreement(s) No. 100975 and/or No. 100956 and Schedules
         1 - 4 issued  thereunder  between Compaq and Commtouch Inc.,  Commtouch
         Inc.  shall pay to Compaq the sum of  $220,000 in two  installments  as
         follows: a) $110,000 immediately upon signing this letter agreement and
         b) $110,000 on January 11, 2002.

2.       Commtouch  Inc.  and Compaq will jointly  coordinate  the return of the
         equipment that is the subject of Schedules 1 - 4 from Commtouch Inc. to
         Compaq.

3.       On or before  December 28, 2001,  Commtouch  Software Ltd. shall pay to
         Compaq the sum of $110,780  ($22,156 per month) in  liquidation  of all
         past debt under the overseas lease  schedule  entered into by Commtouch
         Software  Ltd. and Compaq (or an affiliate  thereof).  It is understood
         that such amount  represents  five months worth of lease  payments that
         are currently outstanding.

4.       Commtouch  Software  Ltd.  shall  issue  Warrants  for the  purchase of
         200,000  ordinary shares in Commtouch  Software Ltd. This issuance will
         take place on or before January 11, 2002.

Please sign below and return a copy of this to me by fax at 650-864-2006.

Thank you,

Avner Amram, COO
On behalf of Commtouch Inc. and Commtouch Sotware Ltd.

Compaq Financial Services Corporation

By: Gary Silverman

U.S. Office:                                               International Office:
2029 Stierlin Court                             6 Hazoran Street (P.O. Box 8511)
Mountain View, CA 94043                                    Poleg Industrial Park
Tel: 650-864-2290                                         Netanya, Israel  42504
Fax: 650-864-2006                         Tel: 972-9-8636888  Fax: 972-9-8636863