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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund XI, Ltd. at March 31, 2000, and its statement of income
for the three months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10-Q of CNL Income Fund XI, Ltd.  for the three  months ended March 31,
2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         1,590,518
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  157,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                   58,042
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         24,611,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,123,015
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,537,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     33,903,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,537,609
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               897,542
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  260,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                679,557
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            679,557
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   679,557
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>
Due to the nature of its industry,  CNL Income Fund XI, Ltd. has an unclassified
balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown  above for  current  assets and
current liabilities.
</FN>




</TABLE>
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:30 PM

To: 'jprice17@live.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Petition for Exempiton: Mile Sky Productions, LLC (FAA-2015-0612)



### May 18, 2015

Dear Mr. Price:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0612). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make, mode l, and type (i.e. - fixed-wing, ro torcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description shoul d include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by June 1, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
#### AIG Hawai'i Ins. Co. v. Shea

19002

4/16/97

Reversed
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-20525

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 3, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendants Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*

*492PER CURIAM: *

This court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of Roberto Salas. *United States v. Salas,*86 Fed.Appx. 788 (5th Cir.2004). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *See Salas v. United States,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1111, 160 L.Ed.2d 991 (2005). We requested and received supplemental letter briefs addressing the impact of *Booker.*

Salas argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the district court erred under *Booker*in imposing his sentence under the then mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines held unconstitutional in *Booker.*This court will not consider a Booker-related challenge raised for the first time in a petition for certiorari absent extraordinary circumstances. *United States v. Taylor,*409 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir.2005).

Salas concedes that he cannot make the necessary showing of plain error that is required by our precedent in *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520 n. 9 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d —, 2005 WL 816208 (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). Moreover, this court has rejected his argument that a *Booker*error is a structural error or that such error is presumed to be prejudicial. *See Mares,*402 F.3d at 520-22; *see also United States v. Malveaux,*411 F.3d 558, 560 n. 9 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 816208 (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). Because he has not demonstrated plain error, “it is obvious that the much more demanding standard for extraordinary circumstances warranting review of an issue raised for the first time in a petition for certiorari, cannot be satisfied.” *Taylor,*409 F.3d at 677.

Because nothing in the Supreme Court’s *Booker*decision requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case, we reinstate our judgment affirming Salas’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

Consent of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

EMRISE Corporation

Eatontown, NJ

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statement (No. 333-152282, 333-74281, 333-71035,333-69571, 333-12567 and 333-65528) on Form S-8 of EMRISE Corporation ofour report dated April 15, 2010, relating to the consolidated financialstatements, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 
| /s/BDO  Seidman, LLP   |   |
|------------------------|--------|
| Woodbridge, New Jersey |
|                   |
| April 15, 2010    |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 672 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 672

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 13, 2016.
    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2666) to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from 
regulating the rates charged for broadband Internet access service. The first 
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill. The 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to 
a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member 
may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Eve Breitman, Respondent, *v.*General Motors Corporation et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 6,1971.

*I. Louis Winohur*and *Michael S. Winohur*for Golf Oldsmobile, Inc., appellant. *Williamson £ Williamson (Kenneth Williamson, Philip H. Omsberg*and *Jules Goldstein*of counsel), for General Motors Corporation, appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

The court erred in granting its own motion, after submission of the case, conforming the pleading to the proof, amending plaintiff’s cause of action from breach of warranty to negligence. Such amendment prejudiced the defendants in that they were prevented from meeting the new issues subsequently raised by the amendment *(Berkenstat*v. *Oliver, 275*App. Div. 679; *Schneiderman*v. *Mother’s Friend’s Wet Wash Laundry,*230 App. Div. 197; *Household Coal & Oil Distrs.*v. *Sage, 57*Misc 2d 428; *Canham*v. *Canham,*4 Misc 2d 538; see 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., p. 30-473) and were thereby deprived of a fair trial.

On the record, no breach of warranty may be imposed upon either defendant.

As to defendant Golf Oldsmobile, Inc., there was no duty, under the circumstances, to inspect and service save to repair the part for which the vehicle was brought in. Hence, no tort liability may attach to it *(Frantz*v. *General Motors Corp.,*176 *690*F. 2d 80),*and the complaint against such defendant is dismissed.

As to defendant General Motors, having issued instructions regarding the maintenance and servicing of the automobile, there are present conflicting instructions as to the use of engine coolant to maintain the engine safely and free from danger of damage.

Such inconsistency respecting instruction and warning must be tested at trial to determine whether instructions in the warranty booklet were so inconsistent that the breach of the duty to properly instruct and warn relative to this coolant fluid was breached, and whether such breach was the proximate cause of the injury to the engine (cf. *Kaempfe*v. *Lehn & Fink Prods. Corp.,*21 A D 2d 197, 199-200, affd. on opn. below 20 N Y 2d 818).

The judgment against Golf Oldsmobile, Inc. should be reversed, without costs, and complaint dismissed. Judgment against General Motors Corporation should be reversed and new trial ordered, without costs.

Concur — Markowitz, Lupiano and Gold, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.
May 1, 2002

23733

#### State v. Moore

Vacated and Remanded
# C_2020061EN.01003802.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/38

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — AG v Europol

(Case T-756/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Decision (EU) 2015/1889 on the dissolution of the Europol pension fund - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 61/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: AG (represented by: C. Abrar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: J. Teal and A. Ketels, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of Europol’s implied decision refusing the applicant’s complaint of 2 July 2018 against Europol’s implied refusal to adopt a reasoned decision concerning his entitlements in the provisional independent pension fund created by Article 37 of Annex 6 to the Europol Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | AC and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

AC and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) shall each bear their own costs.

| 4. | The Council shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---
884 P.2d 1148

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### State v. Carson

17654

9/01/94

Affirmed
# C_2018445EN.01000401.xml

| 10.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 445/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 445/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2018 — Gesamtverband Autoteile-Handel e.V. v KIA Motors Corporation

(Case C-527/18)

(2018/C 445/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Gesamtverband Autoteile-Handel e.V.

Defendant and respondent on a point of law: KIA Motors Corporation

Questions referred

| 1. | Do manufacturers have to supply the information to be provided to independent operators under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (1) in a form amenable to onward electronic processing? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do manufacturers have to supply the information to be provided to independent operators under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (1) in a form amenable to onward electronic processing?

| 2. | Is discrimination against independent operators as prohibited under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 present in the case where a manufacturer, by engaging an information service provider, opens a further channel for information on the sale of original replacement parts by authorised dealers and repairers? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is discrimination against independent operators as prohibited under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 present in the case where a manufacturer, by engaging an information service provider, opens a further channel for information on the sale of original replacement parts by authorised dealers and repairers?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

---
#### Tilli, Admr., Appellant, *v.*Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co.

*Master cmd servcmt*— Railroad *employee*— Death—Federal *Employers’ Liability Act*— Interstate *commerce*— Nonsuit.

A nonsuit is properly entered in an action brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act to recover for the death of an employee who was struck by a train, where it appears that the tunnel in which the decedent was working when he was killed, was not used by the railroad in the business of interstate commerce.

Argued Jan. 10, 1919.

Appeal, No. 56, Jan. T., 1919, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1915, No. 3780, refusing to take off nonsuit in the case of Enrico Tilli, Administrator of the Estate of Vincenzo Tilli, deceased, v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company.

Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass under Federal Employers’ Liability Act to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s decedent. Before Rogers, J.

The court entered a nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off. Plaintiff appealed.

*559February 17, 1919:

*Error assigned,*among others, was refusal to take off nonsuit.

*John J. McDevitt, Jr.,*with him *Samuel S. Herman*and *Harry A. Corson,*for appellant.

*William Clark Mason,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

This action was brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. At the threshold of the trial below plaintiff undertook to show by the first two witnesses called that when the decedent was killed the defendant company was engaged in interstate commerce, but their testimony was just to the contrary. The tunnel in which he was working when struck by a train was not used at all by the defendant in the business of interstate commerce, and the judgment of nonsuit could not have been withheld: Hench v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 246 Pa. 1; Mayers v. Union R. R. Co., 256 Pa. 474.

Judgment affirmed.
Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W 12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket Management Facility: 

OCT 1 6 2013 

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20229 

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Office of Air and Marine (OAM) requests the 

renewal of Exemption No. 10490, under docket number FAA-2001-9369. The list of sections 

are: 

• §91.111(b) 

• §91.117(a),(b)and(c) 

• §91.119(c) 

• §91.159(a) 

• §91.209(a)(l) and (b) 

The justification for the original request(s) remains the same .. 

Due to the potential sensitivity of the material, CBP requests that a summary of the petition 

not be published in the Federal Register. 

CBP OAM continues to conduct border security missions, to include drug trafficking interdiction 

missions and Department of Homeland Security/National Security missions. 

Thank you for your efforts. If I can provide any additional information, please contact me at 

(202) 344-2889, by fax at (202) 344,..3960, or via e-mail at richard.booth@dhs.gov. 

Sincerely, 

~ J// (__/ (~oott' 

Richard T. Booth 

Director, Domain Operations and Integration
# C_2021044EN.01004801.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes v Commission

(Case T-645/18) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Environment - Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures - Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2021/C 44/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA (Luchana-Baracaldo, Spain) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, S. Saez Moreno and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin, R. Lindenthal and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agent), European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), in so far as that regulation classified pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.

---
#### State v. Powers

21564, 21589

12/21/2000

Affirmed
**Annex 8. Item 3.1.1. – Chapter 3.1.5. Crimean–Congo haemorrhagic fever**

###### MEETING OF THE WOAH BIOLOGICAL STANDARDS COMMISSION

**Paris, 4–8 September 2023**

C H A P T E R 3. 1.5 .

# CR IM EAN – CONG O H AEM OR R H AG IC FEV E R

**. . .**

## B. DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES

***Table 1.****Diagnostic test formats for Crimean–Congo haemorrhagic fever virus infections in animals*

Key: +++ = recommended for this purpose; ++ recommended but has limitations;

+ = suitable in very limited circumstances; – = not appropriate for this purpose.

RT-PCR = reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction; ELISA = enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. (a)A combination of agent identification methods applied on the same clinical sample is recommended. (b)Molecular testing/isolation can be used to confirm acute infection in rare cases in animals showing clinical signs as viraemia tends to be transient.

(c)RT-PCR is used for the screening of tick populations in the context of surveillance studies.

(d)Serological evidence of active infection with CCHFV has been demonstrated by seroconversion based on a rise in total or IgG antibody titres on samples taken at 2–4 weeks apart.

(e)Serological evidence of active infection with CCHFV has been demonstrated by the detection of IgM antibodies specific to CCHFV using two different ELISAs based on two different antigens.

. . .