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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,742,203
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         759,890
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 12,693,396
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         789,334
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           789,000
<LOANS>                                    156,839,582
<ALLOWANCE>                                (1,112,115)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             176,309,045
<DEPOSITS>                                  87,723,488
<SHORT-TERM>                                44,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            811,998
<LONG-TERM>                                 17,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,821
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,751,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             176,309,045
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,189,788
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              457,411
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                91,719
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,738,918
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,117,658
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,695,019
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,043,899
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  117,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,516,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,678,053
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,015,369
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,015,369
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.65
<LOANS-NON>                                        652
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           (1,027,300)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   40,000
<RECOVERIES>                                  (16,000)
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          (1,112,000)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       (1,076,000)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       (36,000)
        

</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1126

To limit the annual growth in overhead of Executive agencies of the

Government beginning with fiscal year 1995.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1993

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, and Mr. DOOLITTLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Operations

A BILL

To limit the annual growth in overhead of Executive agencies

of the Government beginning with fiscal year 1995.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Overhead Reduction

5 Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF OVERHEAD OF AGENCIES AND DE7 PARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

8 (a) COMPUTATION OF OVERHEAD RATIOS.—The

9 head of each Executive agency of the Government is au10 thorized and directed to—
2

•HR 1126 IH

1 (1) identify and designate in the agency’s budg2 et any expenditures for overhead; and

3 (2) compute the agency’s overhead ratio as fol4 lows: the overhead ratio is the value of a fraction the

5 numerator of which is the annualized average of

6 total overhead expenses for fiscal years 1991, 1992,

7 and 1993 and the denominator of which is one-third

8 of the total amount of salaries paid to its employees

9 (including contract employees) working on Govern10 ment premises during those fiscal years.

11 (b) INCLUSION IN PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL BUDGET

12 SUBMISSIONS.—In each annual budget prepared by the

13 head of any Executive agency for inclusion in the Presi14 dent’s budget submission under section 1105(a) of title

15 31, United States Code, beginning with the February

16 1994 submission, and for each of the 4 ensuing fiscal

17 years, the annual budget prepared by the head shall re18 duce the agency’s overhead ratio by 6 percentage points.

19 (c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this Act—

20 (1) the term ‘‘Executive agency’’ has the mean21 ing given that term in section 105 of title 5, United

22 States Code, except that the term does not include

23 the Department of Defense; and

24 (2) the term ‘‘overhead’’ means the expendi25 tures of an Executive agency required for the sup-
3

•HR 1126 IH

1 port and utilization of its personnel after deducting

2 its expenditures for salaries (including contract em3 ployees), benefits, and travel.

Æ
#### MATTESON v. MATTESON.

No. 4240.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

June 22, 1944.

S. M. Adams, of Nacogdoches, for appellant.

C. C. Denman, of Nacogdoches, for appellee.

MURRAY,' Justice.

Arlie V. Matteson filed a suit for divorce against Bernice Matteson in district court of Nacogdoches county on November 23, 1943. From a judgment sustaining the plea in abatement of the defendant and dismissing the case, the plaintiff in the trial court has appealed.

The ground relied upon in the plea in abatement was that the plaintiff had not resided in Nacogdoches county, Texas, for six months next preceding the filing of his suit.

Arlie V. Matteson and his wife were married and resided in Harris county, Texas, in January, 1940. . They separated in July, 1941, while residing in Harris county. He registered under the national Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 301 et seq., in Harris county, and" was inducted in the army from Harris county in September, 1942. After leaving his wife in July, 1941, *878he went to his former home in Nacogdoches county where his mother was then residing. After staying in Nacogdoches a short time, the exact period of which is uncertain from the testimony, he went to New Orleans and Shreveport, attending an air craft school in Shreveport. From there he went to Dallas and worked at the North American plant. He worked there until September, 1942, when he was inducted into the army. In September, 1942, he employed an attorney who filed a suit for divorce for him in Harris county, Texas. He has not resided in Nacogdoches county ^since his induction into the army. On January 30, 1944, he paid his poll tax in Nacogdoches county.

The appellant maintains that the intent of the person involved to maintain an established residence in a county is the governing factor in this case and that Arlie V. Matteson claimed Nacogdoches county as his home continuously from the time he separated from his wife in July, 1941, until the time he filed this suit in November, 1943.

We do not agree with the contention of appellant. Tire facts here do not comply with the requirements in R.S. 4631, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 4631, for actual residence on the part of a- person seeking to maintain a suit for divorce. Dickinson v. Dickinson, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W. 205, 208; 16 Tex. Jur. 537.

We have read the case of Montmorency v. Montmorency, Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W. 1168, cited by the appellant, but we do not believe that it has application here.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - (WY-950-1420-00-P) 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The plat of survey of the following described land is scheduled to be officially filed in the Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication. 

## Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska 

T. 32 N., R. 3 E., the Survey of Tract 37, accepted November 13, 2000 

This plat will be placed in the open files of the Wyoming State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and will be available to the public as a matter of information only. Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and prepayment of the reproduction fee of $1.10 per copy. 

A person or party who wishes to protest this survey must file with the State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming, a notice of protest within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication. If the protest notice did not include a statement of reasons for the protest, the protestant shall file such a statement with the State Director within thirty (30) calendar days after the notice of protest was filed. 

If protests against this survey, are received prior to the official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest(s) and or appeal(s). A plat will not be officially filed until after disposition of protest(s) and or appeal(s). 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John P. Lee, (307) 775-6216, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 1828, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003. 

Dated: November 13, 2000. 

John P. Lee,

Chief Cadastral Survey Group.

[FR Doc. 00-29976 Filed 11-22-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
# C_2006294EN.01000602.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Joined Cases C-282/04 and C-283/04) (1)

1

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 56(1) EC and 43 EC - Special shares (‘golden shares’) of the Netherlands State in the companies KPN and TPG - Distinction between ‘controlling holding’, ‘direct investment’ and ‘portfolio investment’ in the context of fundamental freedoms - ‘State measure’ for the purposes of fundamental freedoms - Guarantee of universal postal service)

(2006/C 294/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, A Nijenhuis and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster, J.G.M. van Bakel and M. De Grave, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 and 56 EC — Rights attached to the Netherlands State's special share in the company Koninklijke KPN NV

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | By maintaining in the statutes of KPN NV and TPG NV certain provisions, providing that the capital of those companies is to include a special share held by the Netherlands State, which confers on the latter special rights to approve certain management decisions of the organs of those companies, which are not limited to cases where the intervention of that State is necessary for overriding reasons in the general interest recognised by the Court and, in the case of TPG NV in particular for ensuring the maintenance of universal postal service, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56(1) EC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By maintaining in the statutes of KPN NV and TPG NV certain provisions, providing that the capital of those companies is to include a special share held by the Netherlands State, which confers on the latter special rights to approve certain management decisions of the organs of those companies, which are not limited to cases where the intervention of that State is necessary for overriding reasons in the general interest recognised by the Court and, in the case of TPG NV in particular for ensuring the maintenance of universal postal service, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56(1) EC.

| 2. | The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217 of 28.08.2004

1

---
# Official Journal C 78/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.078.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 78 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5616 March 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.078.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 78

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5616 March 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 078/01 | Commission Opinion of 13 March 2013 relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the decommissioning of the Latina Nuclear Power Plant, located at Latina, Latium region, Italy | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Commission

2013/C 078/01

Commission Opinion of 13 March 2013 relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the decommissioning of the Latina Nuclear Power Plant, located at Latina, Latium region, Italy

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 078/02 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 078/02

Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 078/03 | Call for proposals under the work programme of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking | 4 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 078/04 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 5 |
| 2013/C 078/05 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 9 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2013/C 078/03

Call for proposals under the work programme of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking

4

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2013/C 078/04

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

5

2013/C 078/05

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

9

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 16, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

UNRICO RANIER MINNERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-5092

(N.D. Oklahoma)

(D.C. Nos. 4:08-CV-00317-JHP-SAJ 

and 4:05-CR-00152-JHP-2)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Unrico Minners, a federal prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability

(“COA”) so he can appeal the district court’s denial of the motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct sentence he brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (providing a movant may not appeal the denial of a § 2255

motion unless the movant first obtains a COA). Minners pleaded guilty to four

charges stemming from a crime of violence committed in 2005. See United States

v. Minners, 211 Fed. App’x 742, at *1 (10th Cir. 2007). Minners’s direct appeal

was dismissed by this court on January 4, 2007. Id. The instant § 2255 motion

was filed on May 27, 2008. In the motion, Minners asserted claims that his

counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. The district court
-2-

dismissed Minners’s § 2255 motion sua sponte, concluding the motion was filed

outside the one-year limitation period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

In his appellate brief, Minners argues the merits of the claims he seeks to

raise in his § 2255 motion. He does not address the district court’s procedural

ruling and presents no argument that the district court miscalculated the one-year

period. 

To be entitled to a COA, Minners must show “that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484-85 (2000) (holding that when a district

court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds, a petitioner is entitled to

a COA only if he shows both that reasonable jurists would find it debatable

whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim and debatable whether the

district court’s procedural ruling was correct). Our review of the record

demonstrates that the district court’s dismissal of Minners’s § 2255 motion as

untimely is not deserving of further proceedings or subject to a different

resolution on appeal. Accordingly, we deny Minners’s request for a COA and

dismiss this appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information from Trump Hotels & Casino
Resorts Funding Inc. This data has been extracted from the Consolidated Balance
Sheets and Consolidated Statement of Operations for the six month period ended
June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial
Statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000943323
<NAME>  TRUMP HOTELS & CASINO RESORTS FUNDING INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      936
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   936
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              936
<BONDS>                                        145,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,936
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,238
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,238
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes gaming, lodging, food & beverage and other
<F2>Includes general & administration and depreciation & amortization
</FN>



</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLAUDIA RAMIREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70411

Agency No. A096-353-003

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 19, 2010** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. 

Claudia Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

FILED

AUG 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70411

denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.

2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez’s motion to reopen

as untimely where the motion was filed more than three years after her final

removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ramirez failed to establish the due

diligence required to warrant tolling of the motions deadline, see Iturribarria, 321

F.3d at 897. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.