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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                          11,430
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  168,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    123,636
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               318,816
<PP&E>                                         139,413
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 567,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          149,422
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     236,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   567,452
<SALES>                                        467,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               467,890
<CGS>                                          385,744
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,399
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,499
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,558
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,941
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,941
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
        

</TABLE>
United States of America 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor 

 Washington, DC 20036-3457 

SECRETARY OF LABOR, 

Complainant, 

v. OSHRC Docket No. 09-0555 

SHAW GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC., 

Respondent. 

BRIEFING NOTICE 

The Commission requests that the parties brief the following issues. 

(1) With respect to Citation 1, Item 5, did the judge err in concluding that Respondent 

failed to comply with the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.51(i)? 

(2) With respect to Citation 2, Item 1, did the judge err in affirming a violation of 29 

C.F.R. § 1904.29(b)(3)? 

 The parties are advised that when the merits or characterization of an item are before the 

Commission for review, the appropriateness of the penalty is also subject to review. 

Accordingly, the parties may address the amount of the penalty if they so choose. 

All briefs are to be filed in accordance with Commission Rule 93.1

 The first brief is to be 

filed within 40 days of this notice. A party who does not intend to file a brief must notify the 

Commission in writing setting forth the reason therefor within the applicable time for filing 

briefs, and shall serve a copy on all other parties. The time for filing briefs (or similar notices of 

intent) of opposing parties shall commence on the date of service. 

 

 

1

 The Commission requests that all briefs include an alphabetical table of authorities with 

references to the pages on which they are cited, and that an asterisk be placed in the left-hand 

margin of the table to indicate those authorities on which the brief principally relies. The 

Commission also requests that copies of cited authority, other than statutes, case law, law journal 

articles and legal treatises, be provided to the Commission and to the opposing party. Parties 

should be cautioned that these materials will be considered only if appropriate. 
2

BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION 

Dated: December 28, 2010 __/s/______________________________ 

 Ray H. Darling, Jr. 

 Executive Secretary
July 13, 2011 

Dr. Tony Hawkes 

National Marine and Fisheries Service 

510 Desmond Drive SE 

Suit 102 

Lacey, WA 98503 

c.c. Attn: Jill Bloom 

Front End Processing Desk 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Dr. Hawkes, 

Thank you for your continued efforts regarding bromoxynil and the upcoming 

Endangered Species consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

Bayer CropScience submitted on June 29th material that we hope will assist 

NMFS in this assessment. In addition to the previously submitted information 

we would also like to submit 

1. Bromoxynil studies ( Bruns, 2007; Hoberg (a), 1998; Hoberg (b), 

1998; Repetto, 2011) 

2. A literature search (preformed by Exponent) of bromoxynil peer 

reviewed articles which includes an independent data quality 

evaluation. 

In the evaluation of the existing bromoxynil data, new information has 

become available which will provide a more comprehensive exposure 

assessment. The exposure assessment will better describe the environmental 
chemistry and exposure to bromoxynil, but additional time is needed to 

incorporate these new data. Bayer proposes to submit the exposure 

assessment the first week of August. 

My contact information is below should you have further questions or require 

clarification regarding any of the material enclosed. 

Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 

Laura Phelps 

Regulatory Affairs, Herbicides & PGRs 

Bayer CropScience 

2 T.W. Alexander Drive 

RTP, NC 27709 

office: 919-549-2302 

mobile:919-352-8075 

email:laura.phelps@bayer.com
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6338

STEPHEN T. JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN DOE, Captain, Caldwell County Jail; JOHN

DOE, Sergeant, Caldwell County Jail; JOHN DOE,

Correction Officer, Caldwell County Jail; J.

AUSTIN, Correction Officer, Caldwell County

Jail; MIA LNU, Correction Officer, Caldwell

County Jail; JANE DOE, Nurse, Caldwell County

Jail; JANE DOE, Dietitian, Caldwell County

Jail,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,

District Judge. (CA-95-111-5-MU)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen T. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Jones v. Doe, No. CA-95-111-5-MU (W.D.N.C. Feb. 22, 1996).

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 decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 9 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              ALLEN HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL WINS CHAMPIONSHIP

  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I want to talk about a high school 
champion. I rise to congratulate the 2008 state champions of Texas high 
school football--the Blue and White Allen Eagles.
  Last month, the Allen Eagles defeated Fort Bend Hightower 21 to 14 in 
a stunning second half comeback to win the Texas 5-A football 
championship in Houston's Reliant Stadium. The crowd went wild!
  Under head coach Tom Westerberg, the Eagles' football program has 
thrived with stellar seasons in '07, '06 and '05 as well.
  I will insert the names of the top coaches into the Record.
  There is a special story about this team. Each spring, the rising 
seniors pick a motto for the upcoming season. The players selected: 
Start strong. Finish strong.
  Congratulations to the Allen Eagles. Way to finish strong. I salute 
you. God bless you, and God bless America.
  Go Eagles!
  Tom Westerberg, Head Coach, Asst. Athletic Director.
  Terry Gambill, Asst. Head Coach, Defensive Coordinator.
  Jeff Fleener, Offensive Coordinator.
  Jeff Chaney, Special Teams Coordinator.
  Mike Carter, Strength Coordinator.

                          ____________________
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGUEL ANGEL GOMEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73826

Agency No. A092-486-836

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014

San Francisco, California

Before: NOONAN, NGUYEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Angel Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of withholding of removal.1

 We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

FILED

APR 18 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

1

 On appeal, Gomez does not challenge the IJ’s denial of asylum and relief

under the Convention Against Torture.
Gomez’s claim that neither the IJ nor the BIA had the benefit of the 2011

Country Report is belied by the record. Further, Gomez’s argument that mentally

ill persons constitute a cognizable social group misses the mark because the BIA

did not reach the question of whether Gomez’s proposed group is cognizable. 

Instead, the BIA found that even assuming his proposed social group is cognizable,

Gomez nevertheless failed to demonstrate a clear probability that he would face

persecution on account of his membership in that social group. See 8 U.S.C. §

1231(b)(3)(A) (providing that in order to be eligible for withholding of removal,

the alien must demonstrate that his “life or freedom would be threatened in [his

home] country because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a

particular social group, or political opinion”); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)

(providing that absent a showing of past persecution, the applicant who is seeking

withholding of removal must establish “that it is more likely than not that he or she

would be persecuted on account of” a protected ground).

The BIA’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. Gomez failed to

point to any evidence in the record showing that it is more likely than not that he

will suffer any mistreatment that rises to the level of persecution because of his

mental illness. See Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder, 714 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.

2
2013) (“[A]n inadequate healthcare system is not persecution and is not harm

inflicted because of membership in a particular social group.”).

Because the BIA denied Gomez’s withholding of removal claim on the

merits, we need not reach his argument that the BIA erred in finding that he was

previously convicted of a particularly serious crime.

PETITION DENIED.

3
<PAGE>   1
                                                              Exhibit 10(b)(xi)



                     AMERICAN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, INC.

                               Reload Option Plan
                               ------------------

ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES: CEO direct reports and certain key contributors designated
by the Board from time to time.

TERM OF THE PLAN: Coincident with the last to expire of any stock option plan.

NUMBER OF OPTIONS GRANTED: To be determined as a function of the number of
shares "used" upon exercise of each covered option.

ELIGIBILITY: All Eligible Employees who have received or receive in the future
stock options.

GRANT OF RELOADS: Any Eligible Employee designated by the Board may be granted a
"reload option" on the following terms: For every share of Company Common Stock
used by an Eligible Employee to pay for the exercise of a covered stock option
and for every share of Company Common Stock sold to pay the taxes on the
exercise of a covered stock option, the Eligible Employee will receive new stock
options at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the Common Stock
on the date of the sale of the Stock replaced by the reload options. All reload
options shall have a term equal to the unexpired term of the original grant of
the options exercised in the reload triggering event.

RESTRICTION: Stock purchased in a transaction which results in the grant of
reload options may not be sold during the term of the Eligible Employee's
employment with the Company, subject to a hardship exemption which may be
granted in the discretion of the CEO. If "reload stock" is sold, the employee
will be ineligible for further participation in the reload program for two
years. "Reload stock" will be measured by the net number of shares of Common
Stock owned by the employee at any given time (i.e. so long as the employee
continues to hold at least as many shares as s/he received as the result of
exercises of stock options in reload transactions, the employee will continue to
be eligible to participate in the plan).


                                       48
No. 90-633.

#### Raffield *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IBRAHIM M. LY,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (STAFF MANAGEMENT),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 150 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Leave to File 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                      Andersen Group, Inc.
        Financial Data Schedule
        Commercial and Industrial Companies
        Article 5 of Regulation S-X                                     Exh 27

This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Consolidated  Financial  Statements of Andersen Group,  Inc. for the fiscal year
ended  February  29, 2000 and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CURRENCY>                                                       US Dollars




<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Feb-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Mar-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Feb-28-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1,000
<CASH>                                         1,854
<SECURITIES>                                   926
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,768
<ALLOWANCES>                                   111
<INVENTORY>                                    8,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               15,924
<PP&E>                                         24,912
<DEPRECIATION>                                 14,764
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 37,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,720
<BONDS>                                        11,481
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    4,033
<COMMON>                                       20
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   37,118
<SALES>                                        28,844
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               30,311
<CGS>                                          21,181
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  30,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,725
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,613)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (626)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (987)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,349)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.70)



</TABLE>
Argued and submitted October 8,

affirmed November 26, 1979,

reconsideration denied January 3,

petition for review denied January 22, 1980 (288 Or 493)

#### MONOGIOS, *Appellant, v.*RUFF, *Respondent.*

(No. 11,437, CA 12921)

602 P2d 1131

¡Norval E. Baran, Pendleton, argued the cause and }d the brief for appellant.

*7.*Eugene Hallman, Pendleton, argued the cause I respondent. With him on the brief was Mautz and ¡liman, Pendleton.

iefore Joseph, Presiding Judge, and Lee and íardson, Judges.

JOSEPH, P.J.

*391JOSEPH, P.J.

Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with ifendant on or about November 1,1972. At that time aintiff was registered under ORS 701.055. When is action was brought, plaintiff was not registered, lie trial court granted defendant's motion for sum-gary judgment, and plaintiff appeals.

On September 13,1975, ORS 701.065 was amended provide:

> "(1) A builder may not file a lien or bring or maintain in any court of this state a suit or action for compensation for the performance of any work or for the breach of any contract which is subject to this chapter, unless he was registered under this chapter at the time he filed the lien or commenced the suit or action.”

ie question before us is: Does the statute as amend-in 1975 apply to actions filed after the effective date the statute if the action arises out of a contract tered into before the effective date of the amend-snt? The answer is: Yes. *Mahana v. Miller,*281 Or 77, 573 P2d 1238 (1978).

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 9 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

  The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain up to five 1-minutes on each 
side of the aisle.

                          ____________________
```
----

**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period                ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the                requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                Act of                1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| (2)    | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company.                                                                                                                                               |

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION (1)
  1.
    
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007,
to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and2.
    
    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
 
 (1)
    
    This certification accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of XenoPort, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 has been provided to XenoPort Inc. and will be retained by XenoPort Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1207 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 306 River Street in Tilden, Texas, as the 

‘‘Tilden Veterans Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1207 EH

1 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST TILDEN VETERANS POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 306 River Street in Tilden, 

4 Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Tilden Vet5 erans Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Tilden Veterans Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 15, 

2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1207 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostTexas, as the ‘‘Tilden Veterans Post Office’’. al Service located at 306 River Street in Tilden,
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6873

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRUCE WASHINGTON PHILLIPS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-96-2-R, CA-97-663-R) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Washington Phillips, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jean BarrettHudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Bruce Washington Phillips, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Phillips , Nos. CR-96-2-R; CA-97-663-R (W.D. Va. May 5; June 1, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED