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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM QUARTERS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         859,710               2,342,849
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  753,807                   5,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,225,986               2,828,950
<PP&E>                                         114,045                  69,555
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,840                  16,786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,430,563               2,913,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,369,502                 605,401
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    11,059,293              10,484,681
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                 (96,952)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,061,061               2,913,074
<SALES>                                        128,232                  38,166
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               128,232                  38,166
<CGS>                                          207,662                 782,937
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,662                 782,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,852,608               2,106,198
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,082                 103,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,917,376)             (2,954,879)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800                     800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,918,176)             (2,955,679)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,910,176)             (2,955,679)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.69)                  (1.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.69)                  (1.84)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2004284EN.01001302.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/13

---

Action brought on 30 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-429/04)

(2004/C 284/26)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Knut Simonsson and Wouter Wils.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Declare that, by not adopting the legislative and administrative measures necessary in order to implement Directive 2001/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 4 December 2001 establishing harmonised requirements and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers, or at any rate by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declare that, by not adopting the legislative and administrative measures necessary in order to implement Directive 2001/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 4 December 2001 establishing harmonised requirements and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers, or at any rate by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

1

| 2. | Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments

The period allowed for transposition of Directive 2001/96/EC expired on 5 August 2003.

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 13, p. 9.

1

---
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 20

- 00553

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 2014

- 71749

Style: Rescue Concepts Inc. v. HouReal Corporation

Date motion filed: September 28, 2021

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time

Party filing motion: Appellee/Cross

- Appellant

Document to be filed: Cross

- Appellant’s Reply Brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: July 20, 2021

Number of previous extensions granted: 2

Date Requested: September 28, 2021

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: December 1 0 , 2021

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

Cross

- Appellant filed its reply brief simultaneously with its motion to extend time. However, because the

reply brief and the appendices were contained in the same document, the file size was too large to process

and the filing was rejected. Cross

- Appellant should file the reply brief as one document and the combined

appendices as a separate document.

Judge's signature: /s/ April L. Farris

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: December 2, 2021
Opinion filed September 9, 2010



## In The



# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 10

- 00125

- CR

__________

PEDRO SANCHEZ SALAZAR

A/K/A PETE SANCHEZ SALAZAR , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 42 nd District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 23744A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The trial court convicted Pedro Sanchez Salazar a/k/a Pete Sanchez Salazar, upon his plea

of guilty, of felony driving while intoxicated. Appellant also entered a plea of true to the

enhancement allegation. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the tri al court sentenced

appellant to confinement for twenty years. The trial court certified that appellant ha d waived his

right to appeal , and t he clerk’s record contains appell ant’s waiver of appeal.2

When the clerk’s record was filed in this court, the part ies were notified in writing that it

appeared appellant had waived his right to appeal. Appellant was directed to respond showing

grounds for continuing his appeal. There has been no response to our letter of August 18, 2010.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

September 9, 2010

D o not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
# C_2005031EN.01002601.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/26

---

Action brought on 5 November 2004 by France Télécom against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-444/04)

(2005/C 31/49)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 5 November 2004 by France Télécom, established in Paris, represented by NA. Gosset-Grainville and S. Hautbourg, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision C(2004)3060, delivered by the Commission on 2 August 2004, concerning the State aid paid by France to France Télécom; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision C(2004)3060, delivered by the Commission on 2 August 2004, concerning the State aid paid by France to France Télécom;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments put forward by the applicant in the present case are identical to those put forward by the applicant in Case T-425/04.

---
CAE SimuFlite

 PO Box 619119

 2929 W Airfield Drive

 DFW Airport, TX 75261

 United States

August 29, 2014

Docket Operations, M-30

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. Room W12-140

West Building Ground Floor

Washington, DC 20590-0001

Dear Sir/ Madam:

RE: 14 CFR Part-60 NPRM Docket No. FAA-2014-0391

CAE respectfully requests that the Federal Aviation Administration grant an extension of sixty 

(60) days to the comment period, currently due October 8th 2014, for the subject Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

The changes to the current regulation covered by this NPRM are extensive and include 

significant and important requirements in support of the training requirements resulting from 

PL 111-216 as well as including requirements from the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Doc. 9625 Edition 3, introducing new requirements for the existing Level 

C & D Full Flight Simulator (FFS) and introducing a new Flight Training Device (FTD) that can 

be qualified to Level 7. 

CAE supports the FAA work in these areas and commends the agency for this extensive 

work in updating the Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) standard, and we look forward 

to working with the FAA during its rulemaking process. Should you have any questions or 

require additional information please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned by email

Itash.Samani@cae.com or telephone at (972) 456-8078.

Sincerely,

___________________________

Itash Samani, Head of Global FSTD Regulations

FAA Part-60 Management Representative
P.1 

OAR Box 1103 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

89) IV-C-1 

Docket Number: 

A-83-41 

Printed 4/11/2008 1:50:51 PM Sheet 89 of 174 
P.2 

/Uw/ 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1 ^|/^ L ¥ WASHINGTON; D.C. 20460 ~yTj ^ d, ' J^ 

FB - 6 [995 OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. James E. Gilchrist 

Vice President 

American Mining Congress 

1920 N Street, NW, Suite 300. 

Washington, DC 20036-7535 

Dear Mr. Gilchrist: 

This is in response to your letter of February 1, 19.9 5, 

requesting an extension of- sixty days in the comment period on the 

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed recommendations on 

Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for Exposure of the General 

Public. 

We have carefully considered your request for an extension .of 

the formal period" of comment on these proposed recommenda-tions, 

and have decided not to grant your request at this time. We will 

re-evaluate this decision following the public hearing to be held 

February 22-23, 1995, in Washington, DC. Please be assured, 

however, that we will make every effort to consider" comments 

received after the expiration of the formal comment period, and 

that the process of developing final recommendations will extend 

well past the extension you have' requested. 

Sincerely, 

Allan C.B. Richardson 

Deputy Director for Federal 

Guidance 

Criteria & Standards Division 

Office of Radiation Programs' 

Enclosure 

Printed on Recycled Paper
# C_2004292EN.01000101.xml

| 30.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 November 2004

(2004/C 292/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3247 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,24 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4287 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70100 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9210 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5170 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,47 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0700 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5796 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,020 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 246,54 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6858 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4328 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2122 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 38 922 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,79 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,275 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 896 900 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6890 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5675 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3010 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8502 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1690 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 387,09 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,7180 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3247

JPY

Japanese yen

136,24

DKK

Danish krone

7,4287

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70100

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9210

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5170

ISK

Iceland króna

86,47

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0700

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5796

CZK

Czech koruna

31,020

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

246,54

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6858

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4328

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2122

ROL

Romanian leu

38 922

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,79

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,275

TRL

Turkish lira

1 896 900

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6890

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5675

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3010

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8502

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1690

KRW

South Korean won

1 387,09

ZAR

South African rand

7,7180

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
----

Action brought on 7 January 2004 by Castell del Remei S.L against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-13/05)

(2005/C 69/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 January 2004 by Castell del Remei S.L, represented by Jorge Grau Mora and Alejandro Angulo, of the Barcelona Bar; Maria Baylos Morales and Antonio Velazquez Ibanez, of the Madrid Bar; Fernand de Visscher, Emmanuel Cornu, Eric de Gryse and Donatienne Moreau, of the Brussels Bar, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----
May 2019

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land

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

Conservation Practice Overview

Wildlife Habitat Planting (Code 420)

Establishing herbaceous or herbaceous and shrubby

wildlife habitat by planting of seeds or plants can provide

essential wildlife food and cover. These plantings are

particularly valuable when converting cropland or

pastureland to dedicated wildlife habitat.

Practice Information

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Wildlife

Habitat Planting (Code 420) is used to create herbaceous

or shrubby wildlife habitat in areas that are currently being used for other purposes (e.g., crops or

pasture). Additionally, this practice is used to convert existing poor quality habitat to high quality

habitat. For example, this practice is commonly used to convert monoculture introduced grasslands

areas (e.g., smooth brome grass, old-world bluestems, and fescue) to habitat with more plant species

richness. CPS Wildlife Habitat Planting (Code 420) is very commonly used to provide habitat rich in

blooming forbs for pollinators and monarch butterflies.

The practice lifespan is 5 years, with a target plant community dominated by species that will persist

for the life of the practice. Annual wildlife plantings (e.g., annual food plots) are not planted using this

practice, but rather are planted using CPSs Upland Wildlife Habitat Management (Code 645) or

Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management (Code 644), each having a practice lifespan of 1 year. Habitat

planted to trees is implemented using CPS Tree and Shrub Establishment (Code 612), with a

practice lifespan of 15 years. 

Common Associated Practices

CPS Wildlife Habitat Planting (Code 420) is commonly associated with conservation practices such as

CPSs Herbaceous Weed Treatment (Code 315), Brush Management (Code 314), Fence (Code 382),

and Prescribed Burning (Code 338).

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
# C_2005009EN.01000202.xml

| 13.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3542 — Sony Pictures/Walt Disney/ODG/Movieco)

(2005/C 9/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 November 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3542. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3542. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
Exhibit
33.1


CERTIFICATION
REPORT





Management’s
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting





Management
is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over
financial reporting of the company. Internal control over financial reporting is
a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America.





The
company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and
procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable
detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the
assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are
recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only
in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company;
and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection
of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that
could have a material effect on the financial statements.





Because
of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not
prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of
effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance
with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.





Management
conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting based on the framework in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
Based on this evaluation, management concluded that the company’s internal
control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31,
2008.





Date:
March
31,
2009                                                                By:
/s/ Joseph
M. Cummins


Joseph M.
Cummins


President, Chief
Executive Officer





Date:
March
31,
2009                                                                By:
/s/ Gary
W. Coy


Gary W.
Coy


Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer
Argued and submitted May 28,

affirmed July 14, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MAURICE LAVELL SMITH, *Appellant.*

(C 91-09-34615; CA A73865)

856 P2d 321

Ingrid A. MacFarlane, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*678PER CURIAM

Defendant pled guilty to rape in the first degree, ORS 163.375, and burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225, pursuant to an agreement in which the state dismissed eight remaining counts. He assigns error to the court’s imposition of 60 months post-prison supervision on each conviction. The state concedes that the trial court erred. However, we may not accept the concession, because we may not review defendant’s claim of sentencing error. ORS 138.222(2)(d); *State v. Adams,*315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993); *State v. Woods,*121 Or App 661, 856 P2d 321 (1993); *State v. Tanner,*121 Or App 104, 854 P2d 941 (1993); *State v. Kilborn,*120 Or App 462, 852 P2d 935 (1993); *State v. Johnston*120 Or App 165, 851 P2d 1156 (1993).

Defendant also assigns error to the court’s order that a blood sample be drawn for the purpose of DNA profiling. ORS 137.076. He contends that the statute is unconstitutional. The state argues that defendant failed to preserve the error. However, defendant pled guilty. Our review is limited to claims that the disposition is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual or exceeds the maximum allowed by law. ORS 138.050. Defendant’s assignment of error makes neither contention.

Affirmed.