alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"agency":"Treasury","generated":"2017-10-12 09:51:25","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"}],"value":"2017"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["BEP","DO","FinCEN","Fiscal Service","IRS","MINT","OCC","TIGTA","TTB"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["22","352","150","119","1818","18","389","55","43"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["8","376","125","101","1979","27","344","50","44"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["2","713","8","8","276","1","18"," ","2"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2017","quarter":"Q4"}
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 48 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 48

Expressing the sense of the Congress in favor of the more equitable and 
 more uniform treatment of federally funded and federally administered 
  retirement programs for purposes of any deficit-reduction measures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1993

Mr. Goodling (for himself, Mr. Shays, Mr. Lewis of Florida, Mr. McDade, 
  Mr. Bateman, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Zeliff, Mr. English of Oklahoma, Mrs. 
     Lloyd, Mr. Porter, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
   Faleomavaega, and Mr. Clinger) submitted the following concurrent 
     resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                               Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress in favor of the more equitable and 
 more uniform treatment of federally funded and federally administered 
  retirement programs for purposes of any deficit-reduction measures.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that, in seeking to reduce the 
Federal deficit, any proposal which would diminish, defer, or otherwise 
adversely affect periodic cost-of-living adjustments in benefits 
provided under federally funded or federally administered retirement 
programs should be uniformly applied, consistent with the principle 
that no such program, or cost-of-living adjustment thereunder, should 
be subject to unequal treatment, relative to any other such program or 
adjustment.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2008242EN.01S00301.xml

| 23.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
\

IN THE I.JNITED STATTS DISTRIC-T COTJRT

FOR TTIIT NORTI-IERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

JESTJS GONZALEZ.

Petitioner.

2:22-CV- I 11-Z-BR

DIR[]C'fOR. -fexas l)epartment of Criminal Justice.

Corrcctional Institutions Division.

Respondent.

OITDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

ANI)

DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Befbre the Court are the findings. conclusions. and recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge to deny the Petition for a Writ of Ilabeas Corpus filed by the petitioner in this

case. [:CF No. 20. No objections to the tindings. conclusions. and recommendation have been

filed. Atier making an independent review of the pleadings. frles. and records in this case. the

Cor-rrt concludes that the lindings. conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are

correct. It is therefbre ORDERED that the findings. conclusions. and recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED. and the Petition fbr a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED.

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

22(b). Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 225-l Cases in the United Statc's District Courts.

and 28 U.S.C. $ 2253(c). the Court DENES a certit.rcate of appealabiliry because Petitioner has

tailed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Sluck v. l,lcDunicl.

529 LI.S. 473.484 (2000): see ul.so f{ernuncle: v. Thuler.630 F.3d 420.424 (5th Cir. 2011). 1'hc

Court ADOPTS and incorporates by ref'erence the Magistrate Judge's findings. conclusions, and

Case 2:22-cv-00144-Z-BR Document 21 Filed 09/11/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1752
recommendation filed in this case in support of its tlnding that Petitioner has failed to show (1)

that reasonable jurists would trnd this Court's "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable

or wrong," or (2) that reasonable jurists would t-rnd "it debatable whether the petition states a valid

claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and ''debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its

procedural ruling." Slack,529 U.S. at 484.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 4 2023

W J. KACSMARYK

L.TNITTD STATTS DIS'fRICl' JLJDGII

)

\I

Case 2:22-cv-00144-Z-BR Document 21 Filed 09/11/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1753
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         633,372
<IN-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          816,513
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               626,797
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 14,379,706
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      10,572,087
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        10,464,200
<LOANS>                                    110,372,819
<ALLOWANCE>                                    723,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             146,330,667
<DEPOSITS>                                 113,239,694
<SHORT-TERM>                                10,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,913,923
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,251,856
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,425,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             146,330,667
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,199,855
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              205,150 
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                35,741
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,440,746
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,289,288
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,338,913
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,101,833
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                811,818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                504,064
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     504,064
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   310,064
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26 */
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26 */
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.67
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,269,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               718,547
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              723,547
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           723,547
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

*/   Restated for adoption of SFAS 128


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68987-68988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29199]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-75-000]


Mississippi River Transmission Corporation; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

November 8, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 1, 2000, Mississippi River 
Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing as part of its Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed below to 
be effective December 1, 2000.

Thirty Seventh Revised Sheet No. 5
Thirty Seventh Revised Sheet No. 6
Thirty Fourth Revised Sheet No. 7

    MRT states that the purpose of this filing is to remove the Gas 
Price Differential Gas Supply Realignment Costs (GSRC) surcharge from 
MRT's FT, SCT and IT rates.
    MRT states that a copy of this filing is being mailed to each of 
MRT's customers and to the state commissions of Arkansas, Illinois and 
Missouri.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make

[[Page 68988]]

protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the 
Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29199 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### HARTMAN v. ENGLER.

No. 2344.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

July 17, 1941.

Louis Wilson, of Dallas, for appellant.

Warren S. Cook, of Dallas, for appellee.

HALE, Justice.

Appellee instituted this suit in the County Court at Law No. 2 of Dallas county on an-itemized, sworn account, alleging that appellant was justly indebted to him in the sum of $225.37 for labor performed under a verbal contract of hire. The case was tried before the court without a jury and' resulted in a judgment of $100 for plaintiff.

Appellant asserts that the judgment should be reversed because she says the-preponderance of the evidence showed that she agreed verbally to pay appellee $25 to-do the carpenter work and painting necessary to effect certain repairs on her sleeping porch and that she fully discharged-, such obligation.

Since the transcript does not contain any findings of fact and conclusions, of law, we must assume that the court below found all disputed issues in support of the judgment appealed from. We have carefully reviewed the record, and it reflects that each of the parties testified un-equivocably in support of their respective-contentions. It would serve no useful purpose for us to elaborate on the widely conflicting testimony thus adduced. In our opinion the pleadings and evidence were sufficient to sustain a recovery in favor of appellee for any amount ranging from nothing up to the maximum sued for, depending solely upon the trial court’s exclusive judgment as to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to- be given to their testimony.

Appellant further contends that her motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence should have-been granted. On the hearing of her motion, she produced two witnesses. who testified at length under direct and cross-examination concerning their alleged knowledge of the disputed issues in the case.. However, we can not say that appellant showed due diligence in connection with such motion, or that the newly discovered evidence would require the rendition of any different judgment from that which was rendered. Therefore, in the absence-of any showing of an abuse of the sound discretion which the law vests in the trial court under these circumstances, we must overrule this contention.

Finding no reversible error in the case,, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
# C_2008275EN.01S00301.xml

| 30.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
Exhibit 13.2

Certification by the Principal Financial Officer 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 Annual Report of Celyad S.A. (the Company) on Form
20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick Jeanmart, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |                                                      
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 4, 2017 
|                    
|/s/ Patrick Jeanmart
|Name:                |  | Patrick Jeanmart                                     
|Title:               |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version 

### Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines ANOPR Analytical Spreadsheets The spreadsheets below support the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) for refrigerated beverage vending machines. They are interactive tools for the engineering analysis, the life-cycle cost analysis, and the national energy savings analysis. Instructions on how to use these spreadsheets can be found in the ANOPR Technical Support Document

.

z Engineering Analysis Spreadsheet ( Excel 2.6 MB )

z Life-Cycle Costs (LCC) Spreadsheets ( Excel 5.7 MB )

z National Energy Savings (NES) Spreadsheets ( Excel 12.5 MB )

Contact Information Charles Llenza Project Manager (202) 586-2192

Printable Version EERE Information Center Pa g e 1 of 2 A pp liances and Commercial E q ui p ment Standards: Refri g erated Bevera g e Vendin g Mach...

10/28/2008 htt p ://www1.eere.ener gy

. g ov/buildin g s/a pp liance

_ standards/commercial/bevera g e

_ machi...Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov Content Last Updated: 07/09/2008 Pa g e 2 of 2 A pp liances and Commercial E q ui p ment Standards: Refri g erated Bevera g e Vendin g Mach...

10/28/2008 htt p ://www1.eere.ener gy

. g ov/buildin g s/a pp liance

_ standards/commercial/bevera g e

_ machi...
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM (INDENTIFY SPECIFIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         634,148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,022,152
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    156,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,874,137
<PP&E>                                       1,412,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                 837,374
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,481,401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,252,734
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,324
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,225,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,481,401
<SALES>                                      3,307,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,307,589
<CGS>                                        1,353,135
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,099,424
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,073
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                206,092
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            184,965
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   184,965
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-29-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         53,060
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  309,386
<ALLOWANCES>                                   50,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               486,441
<PP&E>                                         3,248,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 146,419
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,276,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          599,299
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       18,215
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,375,846
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,276,396
<SALES>                                        530,912
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               530,912
<CGS>                                          529,348
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  529,348
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               599,794
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             24,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (599,121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   6,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (605,521)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (605,521)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

NO. 1:22-CR-043-0l-H

WILLIAM ALFREDO CORDOVARODRIGUEZ,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE I'NITED STATES MAGISTRATE JIJDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been filed within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C'

$ 636OX1), the undersigrred District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge conceming the Plea of Guilty is correct' and it is

hereby accepted by the court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty.

sentence will be imposed in accordance with the court's scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

DatedSeptemb", /( ,zon

JAMES SLE RIX

LTNITE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cr-00043-H-BU Document 26 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 43