alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
[ARTICLE] 5
[MULTIPLIER] 1,000
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   9-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          JUN-30-1998
[PERIOD-START]                             JAN-01-1998
[PERIOD-END]                               MAR-31-1998
[CASH]                                          22,004
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                   17,379
[ALLOWANCES]                                   (9,756)
[INVENTORY]                                      1,802
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                40,291
[PP&E]                                         112,800
[DEPRECIATION]                                (56,801)
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                 122,277
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                           48,008
[BONDS]                                          4,287
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                           145
[OTHER-SE]                                      70,778
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                   122,277
[SALES]                                        166,051
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               166,051
[CGS]                                          107,601
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                  144,645
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                  84
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                 21,322
[INCOME-TAX]                                     8,955
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                             12,367
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                    12,367
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                      .86
[EPS-DILUTED]                                      .83
</TABLE>
# C_2018301EN.01004301.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/43

---

Action brought on 11 July 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Carrefour (Representation of crossed lines)

(Case T-424/18)

(2018/C 301/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. Trieb and M. Schunke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carrefour SA (Boulogne Billancourt, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of crossed lines — Application for registration No 14 572 697

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2018 in Case R 945/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
September 17, 1999

21554

#### State v. Kahakai

Affirmed
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

The Board of Directors 

Education ManagementCorporation and Subsidiaries 

 

We have reviewed the condensed consolidatedbalance sheets of Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, and thecondensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the six-month periods ended December 31, 2004 and 2003. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. 

 

We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scopethan an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not expresssuch an opinion. 

 

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any materialmodifications that should be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. 

 

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), theconsolidated balance sheet of Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended not presented herein and in ourreport dated August 3, 2004, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2004, is fairly stated, inall material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

February 4, 2005
22267

#### State v. Lezak

Affirmed
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rolando CALDERILLA-REGALADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-51051.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rolando Calderilla-Regalado appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court sentenced him to 30 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Calderilla-Regalado argues that his sentence violates his due process rights, under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because he was sentenced based on a prior aggravated felony not alleged in his indictment. As Calderilla-Regalado concedes, this argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). We must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“ ‘unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.’ ” *United States v. Mancia-Perez,*331 F.3d 464, 470 (5th Cir.2003) (citation omitted).

For the first time on appeal, Calderilla-Regalado argues that, under *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), this court must vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing because the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it sentenced him based on its finding that he was on supervised release at the time he committed the offense. He also argues that the district court erred by sentencing him under the *pre-Booker*mandatory guideline regime. *78Because Calderilla-Regalado did not preserve the arguments in the district court, our review is for plain error. *See United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied*— U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 816208 (2005).

The district court’s application of the guidelines in their mandatory form constituted error that is “plain” for purposes of satisfying the first two prongs of the plain error analysis. *United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.2005), ce*rt. denied*— U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 1811485 (2005). Calderilla-Regalado also bears the burden of demonstrating “that the sentencing judge — sentencing under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one — would have reached a significantly different result.” *See Mares,*402 F.3d at 521. Calderilla-Regalado has not made such a showing with respect to his Sixth Amendment claim or his claim regarding the mandatory application of the guidelines. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freeman L. HANKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-4935.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided Aug. 23, 2005.

William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Freeman Leroy Hankins appeals the district court order sentencing him to thirty-seven months in prison following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). In his appeal, filed pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Hankins asserts there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Hankins was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. Because our review of the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm Hankins’ conviction and sentence.

Hankins was advised of the nature of the charge against him, the potential punishment, and the rights he was waiving by entering a plea of guilty, and he knowingly and intelligently waived those rights and pled guilty. Moreover, the sentence imposed by the district court was within the guidelines range established by the *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*(2002). There were no judicial enhancements to Hankins’ sentence, thus *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is not implicated. Finally, we find that the district court did not plainly err in treating the guidelines as mandatory since there is no evidence of prejudice as required under *United States v. White,*405 F.3d 208, 223 (4th Cir.2005).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We, therefore, affirm Hankins’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from *413representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decision process.

*AFFIRMED*
# C_2018373EN.01001601.xml

| 15.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/16

---

Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Haba Trading v EUIPO — Vida (vidaXL)

(Case T-503/18)

(2018/C 373/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Haba Trading BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Schneiders and A. Brittner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vida AB (Alvesta, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark vidaXL — Application for registration No 11 603 024

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in Case R 190/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council

---
July 2019

There were 13 surveillance inspections conducted at 12 different sites for a total of 

123 fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities 

when possible. Routine harvest continued.The water temperatures continued to 

increase in response to warmer air temperatures. There were no cages confirmed 

this month. All of the sites with fish in the water remained Category 1 and were 

scheduled for monthly sampling.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

August 2018 50 0 20599

September 2018 40 0 20639

October 2018 40 0 20679

November 2018 40 0 20719

December 2018 45 0 20764

January 2019 40 0 20804

February 2019 50 0 20854

March 2019 115 0 20969

April 2019 108 0 21077

May 2019 92 0 21169

June 2019 123 0 21292

July 2019 123 0 21415
# C_2019103EN.01004302.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/43

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 21 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank v ECB

(Case T-687/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))

(2019/C 103/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) (represented by: O.H. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Yoo, M. Puidokas and A. Karpf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of an act of the European Central Bank contained in an email of 10 September 2018 by which the ECB required that any communication to it by the applicant be made either through the person appointed by the Malta Financial Services Authority or with the approval of that person.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND FOR THE
QUARTER THEN ENDED.  THIS  INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          2,830,400
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,995,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (35,000)
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                7,107,800
<PP&E>                                          1,571,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (692,200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,796,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,115,400
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           56,200
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,525,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,796,400
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                4,855,200
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,504,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,531,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                      605,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               925,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      925,100
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.16



</TABLE>
10 . 21 . 2020

Contact CVB Program and Information Management and Security 

(PIMS) at: CVB.PIMS@usda.gov

Changes are coming 

A new version of the NCAH Portal will be deployed on the evening of Wednesday, October 28. 

The system will be unavailable from approximately 10pm Wednesday to 12am Thursday.

There are not many changes in this version, but a few of them may catch you off guard if you’re 

not aware of them. Be sure to look at the list below and check out any associated User Guides 

so you know what to expect on Thursday morning.

Vol. 4 ISSUE 1

NCAH PORTAL news for CVB

NCAH Portal changes made in version 2.0.8

1. Submitters are not allowed to append documents to any submission type after submission to the CVB, until a child loop is opened

by CVB. This change applies to APHIS 2049s as it is aligning the process for those with what is already in place for APHIS 2048s.

2. When a user in the NCAH Portal is creating an APHIS 2020 for sample submission the sample code field is now required when the

Purpose = Resubmission. This applies to both routine and special test request submissions.

3. When a firm enters an APHIS 2008 in the NCAH Portal and selects one of these firm dispositions: Prelicense, Outline of Production

Change, or Technology Transfer; they are now required to enter a Reviewer’s name.

Important Notification

What is Happening: The NCAH Portal is part of an Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) project where APHIS applications and databases are being migrated to a FedRamp 

Approved Government Cloud environment. 

WHEN: The NCAH Portal production environment is scheduled to be migrated the evening of Friday, 

November 20, 2020.

IMPACT: There is a risk that the NCAH Portal may not be available or have full functionality the week 

of November 23-27, 2020.

REMINDER: A message will be placed on the NCAH Portal dashboard two weeks in advance as a 

reminder of this migration and risk to functionality.

Updated User Guides 

1. User Guide #5 - General Guide for Submission of Veterinary Biologics Production and Test Report

2. User Guide #6 - Submitting Routine Biologics Samples

3. User Guide #7 - Submitting Special Request Biologics Samples

4. User Guide #10 - General Guide for E-Submissions to CVB-Policy, Evaluation and Licensing

Items MUST be retrieved from the NCAH Portal and saved within 60 calendar days after

completion of the Mail Log Item. The NCAH Portal is designed to be a transmission tool, not a 

retention tool. This is a security feature in place to protect your confidential business information.
# C_2019004EN.01001901.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 24 October 2018 — IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS

(Case C-666/18)

(2019/C 4/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: IT Development SAS

Respondent: Free Mobile SAS

Question referred

Does a software licensee’s non-compliance with the terms of a software licence agreement (by expiry of a trial period, by exceeding the number of authorised users or some other limit, such as the number of processors which may be used to execute the software instructions, or by modifying the source code of the software where the licence reserves that right to the initial rightholder) constitute:

| — | an infringement (for the purposes of Directive 2004/48 of 29 April 2004 (1)) of a right of the author of the software which is reserved by Article 4 of Directive 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

an infringement (for the purposes of Directive 2004/48 of 29 April 2004 (1)) of a right of the author of the software which is reserved by Article 4 of Directive 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (2)

| — | or may it comply with a separate system of legal rules, such as the system of rules on contractual liability under ordinary law? |
| --- | --- |

—

or may it comply with a separate system of legal rules, such as the system of rules on contractual liability under ordinary law?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

(2)  Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 2009 L 111, p. 16).

---
# C_2019044EN.01008204.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/82

---

Order of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL)

(Case T-222/18) (1)

(2019/C 44/114)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---