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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          60,000
<SECURITIES>                                   202,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  425,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               766,000
<PP&E>                                       3,926,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,223,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,057,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          562,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,142,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,057,000
<SALES>                                      2,447,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,445,000
<CGS>                                        1,909,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,317,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              70,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                150,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            150,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   150,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
# L_2012112EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ACT

ACT

concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

PART TWO

ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TREATIES

ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TREATIES

TITLE II

OTHER ADJUSTMENTS

OTHER ADJUSTMENTS

Article 14

1.   Article 55(1) of the TEU shall be replaced by the following:

‘1.   This Treaty, drawn up in a single original in the Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish languages, the texts in each of these languages being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Italian Republic, which will transmit a certified copy to each of the Governments of the other signatory States.’.

2.   Article 225, second paragraph, of the EAEC Treaty shall be replaced by the following:

‘Pursuant to the Accession Treaties, the Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, English, Estonian, Finnish, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish versions of this Treaty shall also be authentic.’.

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51288

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALBERTO ALONSO-MACIEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-734-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alberto AlonsoMaciel raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a

prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23(a)






                   Consent of Independent Petroleum Engineers


The undersigned firm of Independent Petroleum Engineers, of Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, knows that it is named as having prepared an evaluation of the interests
of Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd., dated February 23, 2001, prepared for filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2000, and hereby gives its consent to the use of its name and to
the use of the said estimates.



                          Paddock Lindstrom & Associates Ltd.



                          /s/ L. K. Lindstrom
                          ------------------------------------------------------
                          L. K. Lindstrom, P. Eng.
                          President
# C_2016202EN.01015201.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/152 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/152

---

Article 233

(ex Article 200 TEC)

(ex Article 200 TEC)

The European Parliament shall discuss in open session the annual general report submitted to it by the Commission.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                       
<MULTIPLIER>                  1 
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars                
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-1999          
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1998    
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998    
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1    
<CASH>                             1,066,000   
<SECURITIES>                               0            
<RECEIVABLES>                      5,083,000   
<ALLOWANCES>                       1,696,000   
<INVENTORY>                          184,000      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  87,554,000   
<PP&E>                               855,000   
<DEPRECIATION>                       601,000   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    87,808,000   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             55,179,000   
<BONDS>                                    0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0   
<PREFERRED>                                0   
<COMMON>                              78,000   
<OTHER-SE>                        32,551,000   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      87,808,000   
<SALES>                           23,465,000   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  23,465,000   
<CGS>                             20,734,000   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     20,734,000   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    2,731,000   
<INCOME-TAX>                       1,229,000   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                1,502,000   
<DISCONTINUED>                             0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0   
<CHANGES>                                  0   
<NET-INCOME>                       1,502,000   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .19   
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .19   
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT FOR RATIO DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                 THREE
                               QUARTERS       QUARTER
                                 ENDED         ENDED                         FISCAL YEARS ENDED
                               ----------     ---------     ------------------------------------------------------
                               JANUARY 3,     MARCH 22,     DECEMBER 28,  DECEMBER 29,  DECEMBER 30,    JANUARY 1,
                                 2004           2003           2002           2001         2000            2000
                               ---------      ---------     -----------   ------------  ------------    ----------
<S>                            <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>             <C>
Income (loss) from
  continuing operations
  before cumulative
  effect of change in
  accounting principle
  and income taxes             $   29,629     $  73,888       $ 209,987     $  (7,730)    $  55,637     $  19,789

Fixed charges from
  continuing operations           149,783        27,149         117,323       112,750       139,632       141,118
                               ----------     ---------       ---------     ---------     ---------     ---------
                               $  179,412     $ 101,037       $ 327,310     $ 105,020     $ 195,269     $ 160,907
                               ==========     =========       =========     =========     =========     =========

FIXED CHARGES FROM
  CONTINUING OPERATIONS:

Interest expense               $  117,056     $  19,273       $  79,169     $  69,307     $  89,030     $  84,508
Amortization of debt
  expense and discounts             7,435           374           1,721         1,401         1,415         1,357
Assumed interest element
  included in rent expense         25,292         7,502          36,433        42,042        49,187        55,253
                               ----------     ---------       ---------     ---------     ---------     ---------
     Total fixed charges
       from continuing
       operations              $  149,783     $  27,149       $ 117,323     $ 112,750     $ 139,632     $ 141,118
                               ==========     =========       =========     =========     =========     =========

Ratio of earnings to fixed
  charges(A)                         1.20  X       3.72  X         2.79  X       0.93  X       1.40  X       1.14  X
</TABLE>

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

(A) Due to the Company's loss from continuing operations in 2001, the ratio
    coverage was less than 1:1. The Company must generate additional earnings of
    $7,730 to achieve a coverage of 1:1.
#### Michael Aguilar, Respondent, v Anthony Ragusa, Jr., et al., Appellants.

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted a preliminary injunction pursuant to section 51 of the Civil Rights Law enjoining the continued use of plaintiff’s name in defendants’ newspaper advertisements and advertising circulars. There is no merit to defendants’ contention that plaintiff must demonstrate that his name was used as an endorsement for their products or to promote their business. It is sufficient to satisfy the "advertising purposes” prong of the statute that plaintiff’s name, or a readily-identifiable likeness of his name, was used without his consent and as part of defendants’ advertisements in the solicitation of patronage *(see, Flores v Mosler Safe Co.,*7 NY2d 276, 284; *Lerman v Flynt Distrib. Co.,*745 F2d 123, 130, *cert denied*471 US 1054).

Also without merit is defendants’ contention that the al*1003leged libelous words amounted to non-actionable protected opinion. Assuming the truth of the allegations of the complaint, the average reader, viewing the words by themselves *(see, Milkovich v Lorain Journal Co.,*497 US 1) or in the context of the entire advertisement *(see, Immuno AG. v Moor-Jankowski,*77 NY2d 235, 250), could reasonably conclude that some of the words imply the assertion of objective facts and could be construed in a defamatory manner *(see, James v Gannett Co.,*40 NY2d 415, 419; *Russo v Padovano,*84 AD2d 925, 926). Under the circumstances, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ pre-answer motion to dismiss. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J.—Preliminary Injunction.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
# C_2016202EN.01015801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/158 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/158

---

Article 254

(ex Article 224 TEC)

(ex Article 224 TEC)

The number of Judges of the General Court shall be determined by the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Statute may provide for the General Court to be assisted by Advocates-General.

The members of the General Court shall be chosen from persons whose independence is beyond doubt and who possess the ability required for appointment to high judicial office. They shall be appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States for a term of six years, after consultation of the panel provided for in Article 255. The membership shall be partially renewed every three years. Retiring members shall be eligible for reappointment.

The Judges shall elect the President of the General Court from among their number for a term of three years. He may be re-elected.

The General Court shall appoint its Registrar and lay down the rules governing his service.

The General Court shall establish its Rules of Procedure in agreement with the Court of Justice. Those Rules shall require the approval of the Council.

Unless the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union provides otherwise, the provisions of the Treaties relating to the Court of Justice shall apply to the General Court.

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41506 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE ANTONIO MURILLO

- CAMACHO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 387

- 1

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Antonio
Murillo

- Camacho has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Murillo

- Camacho h a s no t filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 20 , 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41506 Document: 00514039807 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2017No. 16

- 41506

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for le ave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-41506 Document: 00514039807 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
# L_2012112EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ACT

ACT

concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

PART ONE

PRINCIPLES

PRINCIPLES

Article 7

1.   The provisions of this Act may not, unless otherwise provided herein, be suspended, amended or repealed other than by means of the procedure laid down in the original Treaties enabling those Treaties to be revised.

2.   Acts adopted by the institutions to which the transitional provisions laid down in this Act relate shall retain their status in law; in particular, the procedures for amending those acts shall continue to apply.

3.   Provisions of this Act the purpose or effect of which is to repeal or amend acts adopted by the institutions, unless such provisions are of a transitional nature, shall have the same status in law as the provisions which they repeal or amend and shall be subject to the same rules as those provisions.

---
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:FAA-2013-0666; Dir ID 2013-NM-060-AD
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2298

DONALD VAN METER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JM & LF INC., d/b/a Action Automotive,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Theresa C. Buchanan, 

Magistrate Judge. (1:14-cv-01074-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Van Meter, Appellant Pro Se. William Edward Hassan, 

Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Van Meter seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s 

order granting the Defendant’s motion to set aside default 

judgment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). The order Van Meter seeks to appeal is neither a 

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Nor could it have been certified for immediate appealability 

under Rule 54(b). In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-88 (4th Cir. 

2005); Equip. Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 

F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE III

ENHANCED COOPERATION

ENHANCED COOPERATION

Article 328

(ex Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a TEC)

(ex Articles 27a

e

b

a

1.   When enhanced cooperation is being established, it shall be open to all Member States, subject to compliance with any conditions of participation laid down by the authorising decision. It shall also be open to them at any other time, subject to compliance with the acts already adopted within that framework, in addition to those conditions.

The Commission and the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall ensure that they promote participation by as many Member States as possible.

2.   The Commission and, where appropriate, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall keep the European Parliament and the Council regularly informed regarding developments in enhanced cooperation.

---
#### Annible Ruberto, Respondent, v Stuart N. Kandel et al., Appellants.

—In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County *661(Vaughn, J.), dated December 11, 1989, which granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 and CPLR 2005 to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In order to have his case restored to the trial calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff was required to show a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution, a lack of prejudice to the defendants, and merit to his case *(see, Stern v Astino,*161 AD2d 757; *Ornstein v Kentucky Fried Chicken,*121 AD2d 610; *Sheehan v Hollywood,*112 AD2d 211). Upon review of the record, we find that the plaintiff made the requisite showing and that the Supreme Court, therefore, properly exercised its discretion in restoring this action to the calendar *(see, Dramer v Board of Educ.,*134 AD2d 478; *Roeder v Allstate Ins. Co.,*115 AD2d 469). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
2018 LMR Swine and 

Pork Reporting Review 

Taylor Cox & Lakisha Aller
➢ Purpose

➢ Old Business Items 

➢ New Business Items

➢ New Reports

➢ Questions
Purpose

From the March Stakeholder Meeting Notes: 

“It was proposed that an annual meeting be held with 

pork industry stakeholders to discuss trends in data, 

implementation of yields, and conducting an annual 

review of product and IMPS codes. Attendees would 

include producers, packers, processors, retailers, and 

other stakeholders. AMS would lead the discussion.”
Old Business – Percentage Survey

➢ Percentage Survey

• Status: On Hold
Producer and Packer Sold Review

➢ Expanding Producer and Packer Sold Data

• Status: On Hold
Questions?
New Business – Volume Threshold

➢ Volume Threshold Review Report

• Status: Completed






Volume Threshold - Conclusion

➢ Avg. Company Loss = 18-19% Cut Lines and 12-13% 

Volume

➢ Est. Annual Loss = 18% Cut Lines or 3,300 Loads (133 

million pounds)

➢ All companies impacted = small -26%, medium -19%, and 

large -12%

➢ Over 12 days, lost 393 cuts lines of which 51 impacted 

cutout directly

➢ Avg. Daily Difference = -$0.11/cwt. Cutout and -5.15 

Loads
Questions?
Two Day Rolling Average Review

➢ Two Day Rolling Average of the Pork Cutout

• Status: Completed



Two Day Rolling Average - Conclusion

➢ Marginal value differences with the largest swings 

in the butt, belly, and picnic primals

➢ Average daily difference = $0.04/cwt. pork cutout
Questions?
➢ Defining a Commodity Hog

• Status: In Progress

A Commodity Hog
Enhance Export Report

➢ Review/Add 4/5 Breaks on Pork Export Report

• Status: In Progress
Example Only
Review Pork Cuts

➢ Review Pork Cut Lines and Cuts used in Cutout

• Status: On Hold

Questions?
New Reports

➢ Sow and Boar Meat Report

• Status: In Progress

➢ Comprehensive Report

• Status: In Progress
Example Only
Specialty Pork

➢ Pork Specialty Product Report

• Status: In Progress

Questions?
Contact Information

Taylor Cox

Field Chief, USDA - AMS - Livestock, Poultry, & Grain Market News

Taylor. Cox@ams.usda.gov

Lakisha Aller 

Assistant Chief, USDA - AMS - Livestock, Poultry, & Grain Market News

Lakisha.Aller@ams.usda.gov

515-284-4460

Web: www.marketnews.usda.gov/mnp/ls-home