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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Textainer Equipment Income Fund VI, LP
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001003638
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund VI, LP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,715
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                   44
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               30
<PP&E>                                         29,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 30,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          994
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     29,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   30,682
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,299
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               64
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                297
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   297
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
#### Theodore WOOD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18773.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Jan. 4, 1965.

Decided March 11, 1965.

Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied April 20, 1965.

Mr. Ira S. Siegler, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.

Miss Julia P. Cooper, Atty., Dept, of Justice, with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Harold H. Titus, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Fahy and McGowan, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

 This is an appeal from a conviction for housebreaking and petty larceny. Testimony at trial established that someone had entered the robbed home— either through the opened second-floor skylight or by breaking a lock on the backyard gate — and had removed a television set, some clothing and a ring. Appellant’s sister, who lived next door to the robbed home, testified that appellant brought a television set to her house at approximately noon on February 27, 1964. Others testified that the theft took place at that time, and that it was the stolen television set which appellant took to his sister’s. Since there was testimony that appellant possessed stolen property so near to the time and place of the theft, the jury may infer guilt both of larceny and housebreaking. Edwards v. United States, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 226, 139 F.2d 365, cert. denied, 321 U.S. 769, 64 S.Ct. 523, 88 L.Ed. 1064 (1944); Wright v. United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 70, 189 F.2d 699 (1951); McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U.S. 520, 33 S.Ct. 146, 57 L.Ed. 330 (1913). See McAbee v. United States, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 74, 294 F.2d 703, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 961, 82 S.Ct. 406, 7 L.Ed.2d 392 (1961).

Affirmed.
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2154 

AN ACT 

To rename the Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center in Fargo, North Dakota, as the Edward T. Schafer 

Agricultural Research Center. 

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

•HR 2154 EH

1 SECTION 1. RENAMING OF THE RED RIVER VALLEY AGRI2 CULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER IN FARGO, 

3 NORTH DAKOTA AS THE EDWARD T. SCHAFER 

4 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER. 

5 (a) RENAMING.—The Red River Valley Agricultural 

6 Research Center in Fargo, North Dakota, shall hereafter 

7 be known and designated as the ‘‘Edward T. Schafer Agri8 cultural Research Center’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula10 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

12 be considered to be a reference to the Edward T. Schafer 

13 Agricultural Research Center. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 17, 2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2154 

AN ACT 

To rename the Red River Valley Agricultural Reter. Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Cen- search Center in Fargo, North Dakota, as the
**Exhibit
      23.2**




December
      31, 2007




El
      Capitan Precious Metals Inc.


Suite
      276


1325
      Airmotive Way


Reno,
      NV
      89502




Gentlemen:




The
      undersigned, the Managing Partner of AuRIC Metallurgical Labs, hereby consents
      to the reference to AuRIC Metallurgical Labs in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
      of El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2007 (the
      “Annual Report”), including without limitation references in Item 2 of the
      Annual Report, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
      Commission.




I
      also
      confirm that I have read each of the references to AuRIC Metallurgical Labs
      in
      the Annual Report and concur with such statements. In giving this consent,
      the
      undersigned does not admit that AuRIC Metallurgical Labs is within the category
      of persons whose consent is required by Section 7 of the Securities Act of
      1933,
      as amended, or the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
      Commission.




Sincerely,AuRIC
                Metallurgical Labs/s/
                Ahmet B. AltinayAhmet
                B. Altinay
              Its:
                  Managing Partner
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James E. Smith, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 718]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered January 22, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [2]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that the plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered *(see generally People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536, 543-544 [1993]). The record establishes that defendant’s plea colloquy was thorough, and defendant had numerous opportunities to object to the proceedings or otherwise to express confusion or doubt and failed to do so. Defendant indicated that he had no physical or mental problems that would prevent him from understanding the proceedings, that he was not threatened or forced into entering his guilty plea and that he was satisfied with the representation provided by his attorney. The affidavit of defendant’s father asserting that defendant suffers from a learning disability does not compel the conclusion that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion. The court “had no indication at the time of the plea that defendant suffered any mental deficiency and, despite the submission on the motion to withdraw of some evidence of mental deficiencies, the motion was not supported by evidence demonstrating that defendant’s plea was not knowing and voluntary” *(People v D’Adamo,*281 AD2d 751, 752 [2001]). Finally, defendant is not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea based on his belated and unsupported assertion of innocence. During the plea colloquy, defendant admitted without equivocation that on the date in question he possessed a loaded handgun that he intended to use *1096unlawfully against a specific person, and the record establishes that the guilty plea “ ‘was voluntarily made with the advice of counsel following an appraisal of all the relevant factors’ ” *(People v May,*305 AD2d 1095, 1095 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 622 [2003], quoting *People v Dixon,*29 NY2d 55, 57 [1971]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Road, Pond

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
# C_2004228EN.01000501.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 13 July 2004

in Case C-262/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

1

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) - Television broadcasting - Advertising - National measure prohibiting television advertising for alcoholic beverages marketed in that State, in the case of indirect television advertising resulting from the appearance on screen of hoardings visible during the retransmission of certain sporting events - ‘Loi Evin’)

(2004/C 228/09)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-262/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji and K. Beal) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans) — application for a declaration that, by making television broadcasting in France by French television channels of sporting events taking place in other Member States conditional on the prior removal of advertising for alcoholic beverages, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), A. Rosas, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha-Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), R. Schintgen, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.

1

---
#### Administrators of Hostler, Assignee, *v.*Patterson and others, Sureties of McIver, late Sheriff.

The Sheriff had returned to an execution, that he had levied monies thereupon, to the amount of *£157,*8s. 4d. and now (he question was how judgment should betaken —whether for the penalty of the. Sheriff’s bond, to be discharged by the payment of the £157,8s. 4d, andeostsi *247or simply for thar sum not regarding* the penalty j aml at length it was entered up f>r *£1¿T,*8s, 4d, — Judges agreeing thereto, reluctanier. See 1777, c. 8, s.

Note. — The practice now is to enter up jtu g-ment for the penalty of the bond, to be discharged by the payment of the real damages assessed by the jury.
#### PHILADELPHIA STEEL AND IRON CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 15008.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 15, 1965.

Decided March 25, 1965.

Charles S. Jacobs, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, Pa. (William R. Spofford, Sherwin T. McDowell, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner.

Mark S. Rothman, Dept, of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D. C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Harry Baum, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.

Before McLAUGHLIN, HASTIE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the thorough, basically factual opinion of Judge Fisher in the Tax Court in this case. The decision of that court will be affirmed.
# C_2004202EN.01001901.xml

| 10.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/19

---

Corrigendum to the standing invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder for the manufacture of compound feeding stuff by the intervention agencies

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 132 of 8 May 2004
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 132 of 8 May 2004

(2004/C 202/10)

On page 6, details concerning the Danish, Cypriot, Lithuanian and Hungarian intervention agencies shall read as follows:

| Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri |
| --- |
| Direktoratet for FødevareErhverv, Animalsk Kontor |
| Nyropsgade 30 |
| DK-1780 København V |
| Tlf. (45) 33 95 80 00 |
| Fax (45) 33 95 80 34 |

Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

Direktoratet for FødevareErhverv, Animalsk Kontor

Nyropsgade 30

DK-1780 København V

Tlf. (45) 33 95 80 00

Fax (45) 33 95 80 34

| Cyprus Milk Industry Organisation |
| --- |
| 6 Amfipoleos street |
| P.O. Box 22 418 |
| CY-1521 Nicosia |
| Tel: +357 22 748000 |
| Fax: +357 22 748261 |

Cyprus Milk Industry Organisation

6 Amfipoleos street

P.O. Box 22 418

CY-1521 Nicosia

Tel: +357 22 748000

Fax: +357 22 748261

| Lietuvos žemės ūkio ir maisto produktų rinkos reguliavimo agentūra |
| --- |
| L. Stuokos-Gucevičiaus g. Nr. 9 |
| LT-01122 Vilnius |
| Tel: +370 5 2685050 |
| Fax: +370 5 2685061 |
| E-mail: info@litfood.lt |

Lietuvos žemės ūkio ir maisto produktų rinkos reguliavimo agentūra

L. Stuokos-Gucevičiaus g. Nr. 9

LT-01122 Vilnius

Tel: +370 5 2685050

Fax: +370 5 2685061

E-mail: info@litfood.lt

| Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (MVH) |
| --- |
| Alkotmány u. 29 |
| 1385 Budapest 62. Pf. 867. |
| Tel: + 36 1 3743 600; +36 1 4752 100 |
| Fax: + 36 1 47 52 169 |
| E-mail: ugyfelszolgalat@aik.hu |

Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (MVH)

Alkotmány u. 29

1385 Budapest 62. Pf. 867.

Tel: + 36 1 3743 600; +36 1 4752 100

Fax: + 36 1 47 52 169

E-mail: ugyfelszolgalat@aik.hu

---
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**for the Period Ended December 31, 2004**

 

I, Ronald Jankov, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of NetLogic Microsystems, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report 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 over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 11, 2005
**RB** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0626 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JESSICA ELAINE HURT ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including July 21 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court June 15 2023

06/15/2023
# C_2004118EN.01003602.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/36

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 21 April 2004

in Case T-313/01: R v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Social security - Refusal of prior authorisation of a surgical procedure - Refusal on the ground of the exclusively cosmetic nature attributed by the administration to the operation - Infringement of the provisions of the Community rules)

(2004/C 118/76)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case T-313/01: R, a Commission official residing in Brussels, represented by C. Tagaras, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, assisted by P. Anestis, lawyer) – application for, first, annulment of the refusal of prior authorisation of a surgical procedure and, secondly, reimbursement of the costs of the operation at issue – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, and V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsinas (Administrator), Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 April 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 22 May 2001 rejecting the application for prior authorisation submitted by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 22 May 2001 rejecting the application for prior authorisation submitted by the applicant;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to reimburse the applicant 85 % of the cost of the surgical procedure as set out by the applicant's surgeon in his prescription of 16 May 2001; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to reimburse the applicant 85 % of the cost of the surgical procedure as set out by the applicant's surgeon in his prescription of 16 May 2001;

| 3. | Orders the parties to determine by agreement the amount to be reimbursed to the applicant for the costs of the operation undergone according to the terms of the prescription and inform the Court of the agreed amount within a period of three months from the delivery of this judgment; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the parties to determine by agreement the amount to be reimbursed to the applicant for the costs of the operation undergone according to the terms of the prescription and inform the Court of the agreed amount within a period of three months from the delivery of this judgment;

| 4. | Orders the parties, in the absence of agreement, to submit to the Court, within a period of three months from the delivery of this judgment, the figures they propose in respect of the amount to be reimbursed; and |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the parties, in the absence of agreement, to submit to the Court, within a period of three months from the delivery of this judgment, the figures they propose in respect of the amount to be reimbursed; and

| 5. | Reserves the costs, including those incurred for the purposes of the expert medical report. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Reserves the costs, including those incurred for the purposes of the expert medical report.

---

(1)  OJ C 44 of 16. 2. 2002.

1

---