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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             440
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,039
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     13,428
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         27,456
<ALLOWANCE>                                        158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,589
<DEPOSITS>                                      17,675
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                557
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,562
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,778
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  44,589
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,197
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  496
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,693
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 462
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 617
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,076
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       11
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (1)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    489
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       295
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.08
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   148
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  158
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            158
        

</TABLE>
# C_2004228EN.01003902.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/39

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 26 May 2004

in Case T-165/02: Enrique José Lloris Maeso v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Action for annulment - No steps taken by the applicant - No need to adjudicate)

(2004/C 228/88)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case T-165/02: Enrique José Lloris Maeso, residing in Valencia (Spain), represented by Julian Bosch Abaraca, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall, assisted by José Rivas Andrés and Juan José Gutiérrez Gisber, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition COM/A/10/01 awarding him in the preselection stage a number of points insufficient for him to be admitted to the tests in that competition —, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 26 May 2004 the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | There is no need to proceed to judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to proceed to judgment;

| 2. | The applicant shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 26.10.2002.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 6779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02353]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Effective date: February 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 30, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 108 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2015-27, CP2015-36.

Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Requirements.
[FR Doc. 2015-02353 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsRulemaking Dockets

# Rulemaking Dockets for 2017

subscribe to page updates
*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, January 23, 2023

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, January 23, 2023
**Exhibit 15**

 

The Partners

Duke Realty Limited Partnership

 

 

Gentlemen:

 

RE: Registration Statement Nos. 333-100571

 

With respect to the subject registrationstatements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report datedApril 30, 2003 related to our review of interim financial information.

 

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, such report is not considered a part of a registration statementprepared or certified by an accountant, or a report prepared or certified by anaccountant within the meaning of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

 

 

KPMG LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

May 13, 2003

 

----
#### Nabbefeld, Appellant, vs. Nabbefeld, Respondent.

*666For the appellant: *Benton, Bosser, Becker & Parnell*of Appleton.

For the respondent: *Heber H. Pelkey*of Appleton.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2004118EN.01000401.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-278/00: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(State aid - Settlement by the State of debts incurred by agricultural cooperatives)

(2004/C 118/07)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-278/00: Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and C. Tsiavou), with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Flett and D. Triantafyllou), with an address for service in Luxembourg – action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2002/458/EC of 1 March 2002 on the aid schemes implemented by Greece in favour of the settlement of debts by the agricultural cooperatives in 1992 and 1994, including the aids for the reorganisation of the dairy cooperative AGNO (OJ 2002 L 159, p. 1), or in the alternative the annulment of Article 2 of that decision – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A Timmermans and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.

1

---
#### MARTIN WOOLARD *vs.*JAMES R. GRIST.

June 1843

A bond, taken by one who is overseer of a road, from a person bound to work on the road, the consideration of which is for work on the road which done by the overseer but which the obligor was bound to do, is not void on account of the consideration.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Beaufort County, at Spring Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Baily presiding.

This was an action of debt on a bond, commenced by warrant before a magistrate and carried by successive appeals to the Superior Court. The execution of the bond was admitted. The defence relied on was, that the consideration of the bond was illegal, as being against public policy. It was admitted that the plaintiff was overseer of a road in the ¡said county, appointed at Term of the County Court, and that the defendant was liable to work on the said road. A witness for the defendant proved that he, at the request of the plaintiff and in the presence of both parties, wrote the bond — that tho plaintiff then said that it was taken for work done by him for the defendant, as a hand on a road oí which the plaintiff' was overseer. Another witness for the defendant proved that he was a constable in that county — that the plaintiff put the bond declared on in his hands for collection, and he, the plaintiff, then said, that the defendant contracted with him to do work on the road to the amount of sixty dollars, and that he (the plaintiff') had done the work by hiring hands and his own labor to that amount, and that the defendant had given the bond for that labor. The court was of opinion and so charged the jury, that the law was in favor of the plaintiff. The jury *454found a verdict for the plaintiff, and, judgment being rendered pursuant thereto, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

No counsel appeared for either party in this court.

Daniel, J.

The defence to the bond relied on at the trial was, that the consideration of it was illegal, as being against public policy.., There is no statute, prohibiting the taking of such a bond ; and we are unacquainted with any rule of the common law, which would make the bond void as being against public policy. It seems to ns that the bond is good in law, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**











The
      undersigned officer of Hines Horticulture, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies
      that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
      30, 2007 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the
      “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange
      Act”), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Date:
      November 14, 2007


/s/
      JAMES R. TENNANT


James R. Tennant


President, Chief Executive Officer and Director


(Principal Executive Officer)
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Control , Animal Trails and Walkways, Brush Management, Conservation Cover, Early Successional Habitat Development/Mgt., Fence, Forage and Biomass Planting, Range Planting, Tree/Shrub Establishment, Upland Wildlife Habitat Management, Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management.

**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_2004301EN.01000101.xml

| 7.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 December 2004

(2004/C 301/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3435 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,47 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4287 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69180 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8992 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5272 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 83,99 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1430 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5791 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,786 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,49 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6890 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4322 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1707 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 38 022 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,84 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,135 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 878 300 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7310 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6072 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4404 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8592 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1955 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 398,38 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,6784 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3435

JPY

Japanese yen

137,47

DKK

Danish krone

7,4287

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69180

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8992

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5272

ISK

Iceland króna

83,99

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1430

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5791

CZK

Czech koruna

30,786

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,49

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6890

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4322

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1707

ROL

Romanian leu

38 022

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,84

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,135

TRL

Turkish lira

1 878 300

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7310

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6072

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4404

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8592

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1955

KRW

South Korean won

1 398,38

ZAR

South African rand

7,6784

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
October 2020

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Prescribed Burninig (Code 338) 

Prescribed burning is applying a planned fire to a

predetermined area of land. 

Practice Information 

Prescribed burning can be applied for several purposes.

For the plant community, prescribed burning is used to

manage undesirable vegetation and reduce plant pressure

caused by pests, pathogens, and diseases. For safety and

protection of property, prescribed burning is used to reduce

the various risks associated with wildfire. For wildlife, prescribed burning is used to improve terrestrial

habitat for wildlife and invertebrates (pollinators), and it improves plant and seed production, quantity,

and/or quality. For livestock, prescribed burning is used to improve the livestock-forage balance by

enhancing plant productivity and the distribution of grazing and browsing animals. Prescribed burning

also improves habitat for soil organisms, thereby enhancing soil health. 

Application of this highly specialized practice requires intensive training and sufficient support

personnel and equipment. A safe, successful burn must be timed for proper humidity, wind conditions,

air temperature, and fuel conditions (ignitable vegetation). Safety precautions are planned before the

burn and monitored during the burn. Be aware of your state’s smoke management program and use

the specific tools your state has implemented to address smoke. Be mindful of the potential air quality

impacts that burning might have on downwind communities. 

All burn plans must address the following: location and description of the burn area, resource

management objectives, preburn vegetation cover, preburn preparation required, weather conditions,

equipment checklist, personnel needs and assignments, safety requirements, firing sequence and

ignition method, smoke management plans, notification checklist, approval signatures, and postburn

evaluation criteria. 

Common Associated Practices 

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Prescribed Burning (Code 338) is commonly applied

with other practices such as NRCS CPSs Fire Break (Code 394), Prescribed Grazing (Code 528),

Forest Stand Improvement (Code 666), Forest Trails and Landings (Code 655), Range Planting (Code

550), Forage and Biomass Planting (Code 512), Pest Management Conservation System (Code 595),

and other associated harvesting, planting, and seeding practices. 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS II,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

ROBERT L. AYERS, Jr., Warden; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

J. CURZON, Associate Warden; et al.,

Defendants. No. 18

- 17360

D.C. No. 4:11

- cv

- 04730

- JSW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Earnest Cassell Woods II appeals pro se from the

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

AUG 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 

# FILED

AUG 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 17360

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Woods failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any defendant was

deliberately ind ifferent to Woods’s gastrointestinal issues

. See id. at 1057

- 60 (a

prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards

an excessive risk to inmate health) ; Hallett v. Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir.

2002) ( a delay in medical treatment do es not constitute deliberate indifference

unless the delay led to significant injury ).

We reject as without merit Woods’s contention of judicial bias.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Woods’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied as

unnecessary

.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2004279EN.01000101.xml

| 16.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 November 2004

(2004/C 279/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2955 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,48 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4318 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6989 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9613 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5241 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,79 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,083 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5777 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,46 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 243,87 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6792 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4318 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2661 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 39 715 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,77 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,62 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 884 500 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6767 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,549 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0733 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8487 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1385 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 414,95 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,834 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2955

JPY

Japanese yen

136,48

DKK

Danish krone

7,4318

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6989

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9613

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5241

ISK

Iceland króna

86,79

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,083

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5777

CZK

Czech koruna

31,46

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

243,87

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6792

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4318

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2661

ROL

Romanian leu

39 715

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,77

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,62

TRL

Turkish lira

1 884 500

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6767

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,549

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0733

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8487

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1385

KRW

South Korean won

1 414,95

ZAR

South African rand

7,834

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Goslinowski and wife, Respondents, vs. Pawlowski, *alias,*Appellant.

For the appellant: *Stover & Stover*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents: *Fawcett & Dutcher*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.