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

                                                               
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          67,971
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  308,749
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,775)
<INVENTORY>                                    364,397
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               774,181
<PP&E>                                       3,815,882
<DEPRECIATION>                               (812,439)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,534,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          445,010
<BONDS>                                        933,294
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,227,599
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,226,162
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,534,257
<SALES>                                      2,307,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,307,763
<CGS>                                        1,698,416
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,698,416
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               163,291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,574
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                378,482
<INCOME-TAX>                                   117,479
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            261,003
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   261,003
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.77
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Velez, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention on appeal that the suppression court erred in finding that the police had probable cause to arrest him *(see generally, People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210; *People v Cantor,*36 NY2d 106). Defendant’s reliance on *People v Quiroz*(127 AD2d 616) and *People v Ferry*(152 AD2d 952) is misplaced. In *Quiroz,*defendant was observed more than 30 minutes after the crime had been committed and there was nothing suspicious about his behavior, while in this case defendant was seen running a block or two away from the site of the burglary, within minutes after the crime, at about 2:30 a.m. In *Ferry,*the police had no information tending to connect defendant with an auto theft that had occurred an hour earlier, and a mile from the place where defendant was found.

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Barrett, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1108 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1108

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 include court security officers in the public safety officers' death 
                           benefits program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2015

 Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. Heller) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 include court security officers in the public safety officers' death 
                           benefits program.

    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 ``Stanley Cooper Death Benefits for 
Court Security Officers Act''.

SEC. 2. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' DEATH BENEFITS.

    Section 1204(9) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b(9)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``; or'' and 
        inserting a semicolon;
            (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(E) a court security officer who is under 
                contract with the United States Marshals Service.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for each fiscal 
year to carry out the amendments made by this Act.

SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any injury sustained 
on or after January 1, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2020329EN.01000901.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/9

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság) — Hungary) — KD v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-67/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/12)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41668

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN RECIO-VALLEJO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-03-CR-612-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Recio-Vallejo (“Recio”) appeals his guilty plea

conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal reentry into the

United States following an aggravated felony conviction in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal,

Recio argues that the district court erred in assigning a

criminal history point for his sentence for reckless driving. 

Recio contends that, had his criminal history score been

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-41668

-2-

correctly determined, he would have been in Criminal History

Category II, rather than in Category III.

Because the issue was not raised in the district court,

this court’s review is for plain error only. See United States

v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993); FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b). When

reviewing for plain error in the sentencing context, “this court

has concluded that if the trial judge, on remand, could reinstate

the same sentence, it will uphold the sentence imposed despite

the trial court’s error.” United States v. Leonard, 157 F.3d

343, 346 (5th Cir. 1998). Recio admits that, even if his

criminal history score were corrected, the district court could

impose the same 46-month sentence on remand. Accordingly, Recio

has not shown plain error. See id.

Recio acknowledges that Leonard continues to be binding

precedent in the sentencing guidelines context, but he contends

that this court should apply the presumed-prejudice approach

adopted in United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir.)

(en banc), cert. denied, S. Ct. , 2004 WL 316508 (May 24, 

2004). One panel may not overrule the decisions of another

without en banc consideration or an intervening Supreme Court

opinion. See Hogue v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 466, 491 (5th Cir.

1997). The en banc decision in Reyna did not extend the

presumption of prejudice to errors that result in the application

of an incorrect guideline range. See Reyna, 358 F.3d at 353. 
No. 03-41668

-3-

For the first time on appeal, Recio argues that the

sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (2) are

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). Recio acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he

seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi

did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at

489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.

2000). 

AFFIRMED.
# Templates Archives - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Match Rate Calculator DISCLAIMER: This tool is made available to provide prospective applicants an initial reference to calculate match requirements. The use of this tool is at the applicant’s sole discretion and it does not bind ARC to award a grant nor to award a grant at the levels expected from the use of this tool. It does not substitute [&#8230;]The post Match Rate Calculator appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Workplan Template ARC requires all applicants to include a workplan as part of their final application package (as noted in both construction and non-construction application checklists under “project description”). This template offers applicants a tool that can be downloaded and used to complete this application requirement.The post Workplan Template appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Budget Narrative Template This template can be used to develop a budget narrative for both new ARC grant applications and requests for budget revisions once a project is under contract.The post Budget Narrative Template appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Executive Summary Template This template can be used to develop the Executive Summary for a new ARC grant applicationThe post Executive Summary Template appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 17, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00860

- CV

IN RE VILORE FOODS C OMPANY, INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Irene Rios , Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

The Respondent ’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Relator ’ s Petition for

Writ of Mandamus is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to February 14 , 2020.

It is so ORDERED on January 17, 2020

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_________________________ MICHAEL A. CRU Z

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding a rises out of Cause No. 2019CVF00316 D1 , styled Catalina Castillo v. Vilore Foods

Company, Inc. and Raymundo Bretano , pending in the 49th Judicial District Cou rt

, Webb County, Texas, the

Honorable Joe Lopez presid ing.
# C_2010179EN.01000602.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Germany)) — Arnold und Johann Harms als Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts v Freerk Heidinga

(Case C-434/08) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Transfer of payment entitlements - Definitive transfer)

(2010/C 179/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Arnold und Johann Harms als Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts

Defendant: Freerk Heidinga

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Interpretation of Article 46(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2007 L 270, p. 1) — Contractual clause, inserted into an agreement intended outwardly to effect a complete and definitive transfer of payment entitlements, according to which the transferee, as the formal owner of payment entitlements, is to activate those payment entitlements through cultivation of the corresponding land, but is to pass on to the seller a part of the payments received

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 must be interpreted as not precluding a contractual arrangement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the object of which is to effect a definitive transfer of payment entitlements whereby the transferee, in his capacity as the person entitled to them, is to activate the payment entitlements and to pass on to the transferor, without any limit in time, the full amount, or a part thereof, of the payments received on that basis, provided that the purpose of such an arrangement is not to permit the transferor to retain a part of the payment entitlements which he has formally transferred, but to determine, by reference to the value of that part of the payment entitlements, the agreed price for the transfer of all the payment entitlements.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

---
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, Leonard Osser, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Milestone Scientific Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:  April 2, 2007              /s/      Leonard Osser   Leonard Osser   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
### AL'S AERIAL SPRAYING, LLC

Spraying - Fertilizing - Seeding
Michael D. Schiffer

December 12, 2011

## ~ \SD«-'\ 3473 N. Shepardsville Rd. Ovid, Ml 48866 (989) 834-5067 Fax (989) 834-5098 VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Marc 

### L. Warren, ting ChiefCounsel Federal Aviatio Administration 800 Indepen nee Avenue, S.W. Room 90 ast Washi ton, D.C. 20591
DearMr. Warren: Re: Al's Aerial Spraying, LLC Exemption 10142A FAA Docket No. FAA 2010-0134 Albert E. Schiffer

A1's Aerial Spraying, LLC hereby requests the FAA to renew and/or extend the termination date ofExemption No. 10142A as amended for a two-year period from April30, 2012, or for such longer period as the FAA may deem appropriate. This exemption from 14 CFR 

### § 137.5l(b)(4)(i) allows Al's Aerial Spraying to use a single engine turbo-propeller-powered Air Tractor aircraft to make turnarounds over congested areas in a loaded configuration, subject to listed conditions and limitations. There has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. Al's Aerial Spraying, LLC has strictly complied with all ofthe conditions and limitations set forth in the exemption. Ithas collected and submitted all ofthe requested data to their FAA Principal Operations Inspector. For all ofthe foregoing reasons, Al's Aerial Spraying, LLC requests the FAA to extend and/orrenew Exemption No. 10142A for an additional two-year period from. April30, 2012, or for such longerperiod as the FAA may deem appropriate.

CC: Carl N. Johnson, ManagerFSS Operations & FAAST Support Branch
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00253-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-003896-1

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

LATASHA HARRIS, Appellant

V.

MJAY INVESTORS, LLC, BY ITS AGENT, SPECIALIZED PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On December 1, 2020, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as 

the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant filed with 

the court an appellant’s brief and an accompanying motion reasonably explaining the 

brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response.

Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: January 14, 2021
**Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 June 2008 – Kurt v Bürgermeister der Stadt Wels**

**(Case C‐104/08)**

Articles 92(1) and 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Fundamental freedoms – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National legislation requiring the possession of a diploma for the issue of a permit to operate a driving school – Discrimination against own nationals as compared to nationals of other Member States

1.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Provisions of the Treaty – Inapplicable
in a situation which is purely internal to a Member State (Arts 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) (see paras 19-24, operative part 1)*

2.                     *Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 27-28)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich – Interpretation of the fundamental principles of the EC and EU Treaties and the fundamental freedoms thereunder, as well as Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National legislation establishing a permit system for establishing, operating and managing a driving school and establishing a diploma requirement – Discrimination against own nationals as compared to nationals of other Member States who avail themselves of their rights under Community law and who do not necessarily have to satisfy the diploma requirement. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Articles 23 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State which, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, refuses to recognise professional qualifications acquired by a national of that Member State as equivalent to the possession of the diploma required by that legislation for the purposes of operating a driving school as an independent operator in that Member State. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the second and third questions referred by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich. |
1 

O:) 

TO WHOM 

01 

Ka'Wefak. is . regional Native non--profit orpnization ~~·to triberin 

Bering Strait Region. Native V1lage of Diomede is one of the Tribes that we provide seNkes 

to. 

~~Inc. 

subsidy for the ream~~ we are msuppmt 

pa•npr servke to/from Diomede, and mp:n:wements to the current situatiOn where 

people to resort to space,avaiable _......-.. des:~enc:Ent
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arthur Lee Jones, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), rendered May 29, 1990.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, William M. Caldwell, IV, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





| |  | /s/ WILLIAM M. CALDWELL, IVWilliam M. Caldwell, IV
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks