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

<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1.00000
<CASH>                                 5,680,225
<SECURITIES>                           2,167,415
<RECEIVABLES>                         60,410,192
<ALLOWANCES>                          (9,469,295)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      71,899,042
<PP&E>                                 2,947,920
<DEPRECIATION>                          (998,975)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        73,847,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  1,905,851
<BONDS>                               71,195,487
<COMMON>                                  79,968
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                               666,681
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          73,847,987
<SALES>                                3,920,994
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       3,920,994
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          1,990,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         336,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     2,162,658
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (568,911)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (568,911)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                            (568,911)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (0.070)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.070)
        


</TABLE>
* The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-2469SI

_____________ Jerry L. Miles, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. Herbert Maschner, Warden of the Iowa * State Penitentiary; Thomas J. Miller, * [UNPUBLISHED] Iowa Attorney General, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: February 9, 1999

Filed: February 19, 1999

_____________ Before FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM, * District Judge.

_____________ PER CURIAM.
In 1991, an Iowa jury convicted Jerry L. Miles of a state law weapons violation. After Miles completed his sentence, Miles was convicted and sentenced on a drug-related charge. While serving this new sentence, Miles petitioned the districtcourt for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his 1991 conviction. See 28-2-

U.S.C. § 2254 (1994 & Supp. II 1996). The district court dismissed Miles’s habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Miles appeals, and we affirm.
Miles contends the district court committed error in dismissing his habeas petition. We disagree. The district court properly concluded it did not have jurisdiction to address the merits of Miles’s petition because Miles was no longer in custody for the 1991 conviction, having completely served and discharged his state sentence before filing his habeas petition. See Maleng v. Cook , 490 U.S. 488, 490-92 (1989) (per curiam); Love v. Tippy , 128 F.3d 1258, 1258-59 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam); Charlton v. Morris , 53 F.3d 929, 929 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Contrary to Miles’s view, he cannot satisfy the in custody requirement in this habeas case by arguing his 1991 conviction could delay parole from his current sentence. It is well s ettled that “once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired, the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual ‘in custody’ for purposes of a habeas attack upon it.” Maleng , 490 U.S. at492. Additionally, Miles’s alternative argument that his habeas petition should be construed as a permissible collateral attack on his current sentence is foreclosed by the decisions of this court. See Love , 128 F.3d at 1259 (habeas petitioner cannot collaterally attack state conviction used to enhance latersentence if attack does not involve failure to appoint counsel); Charlton , 53 F.3d at 929-30 (same).
We affirm the dismissal of Miles’s habeas petition for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation adopted by the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
() NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. O.C: •

. inuominult •

OFFICE OF THEOIRECTOR August 3, 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. ALBERT HALL, ASD(I)

SUBJECT: NRO Coordination on DOD Response to OMB Staff

Report

In accordance with our agreement to include the NRO

comments to the OMB Staff Report within the DOD response,

I am providing my coordination to the document.

I understand that the Ad Hoc group representing the

DOD Intelligence Agencies which was formed to respond to

the Staff Report will continue in being to prepare an

implementing plan. The plan will detail specifically what

will be done to pursue the proposed actions. For those

actions in the plan which directly impact and involve NRO

systems, the NRO will take the primary responsibility.

Participation from other interested and involved DOD

agencies will be welcomed.

.

•

HANDLE VIA CLAvonto Mows • I num: rim

BYEMAN tratl=reniecirssmoutto:.--10P—Sittir

CONTROL SYSTEM Sony DECLAINPV ow noon.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





MICROS
      SYSTEMS, INC.





Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
      to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18
      U.S.C. 1350




I,
      A.L.
      Giannopoulos, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of MICROS Systems,
      Inc. (“Registrant”), certify that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  The
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 of the
      Registrant (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.




Date:
                May 8,
                2007
              
              
              /s/
                  A.L. GiannopoulosA.L.
                  Giannopoulos
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
ANDREW SEARCY, JR
., Petitioner

,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICU LTURE
, Respondent

.

______________________

2013

- 3175

______________________
Petition for review from the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. AT432412 0759 -I-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________ Before R ADER
, Chief Judge

. O R D E R

Andrew Se arcy, Jr. (“Searcy”) appli es for an exem ption from the user fees associated with electronic access to court records.

The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) system allows users to view and print case filings, judicial opinions, and othe r docket information from the federal trial, bankruptcy, and appellate courts. A small fee is ordinarily required to search and print such Case: 13-3175 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 10/07/2013SEARCY V

. AGRICULTURE 2

docu ments, but t he Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule (“Schedule”) carves out a narrow exception t o that rule

, al low ing courts discretion to ex empt certain persons or classes of persons from payment.

The Schedule makes clear, however, that “[c]ourts should not . . . exem pt individuals and groups that have the ability to pay the statutorily established access fee.” Accordingly, a movant seeking a fee waiver must demo nstrate that the exemption “is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to information.” Based on the papers submitted, t he court is unabl e to say that S earcy has me t th is standard as he has not demonstrated the inability to pay the fee. Thus, this court must deny his request.

Accordingly

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The application for an exemption from the fees for accessing documents on PACER is denied.

F O R THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk

s19 Case: 13-3175 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 10/07/2013
# C_2005057EN.01000502.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 20 January 2005

in Case C-448/02: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1995 financial year - Arable crops)

(2005/C 57/09)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-448/02: Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and G. Kanellopoulos) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) – Action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 10 December 2002 – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris (Rapporteur) and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 January 2005 in which it:

Hellenic Republic

Commission of the European Communities

| 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 31, 08.02.2003.

1

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

NEIL D. HARKNESS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D23-572

LT Case No. 2021-CF-1229

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed July 11, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Duval County,

R. Anthony Salem, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and 

Teresa D. Sutton, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and 

Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
Approved for Release: 2018/11/16 C05115202 

- '""f" ~.", "~'n 

~, ._ ,3 

MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

SUBJECT: Successful TAGBOARD Test Flight, July 10, 1969 

Handle via eVEMAN 

f;('{J [: ;zd 

11 JUt 1969 

On July 10, 1969, the TAGBOARD System was successf'ully flown over 

the Pacific Missile Range by drone #520. This was the second conaecu ti ve 

successful TAGBOARD launch. 

The drone was launched from the B-52 mother aircraft at 2l56z (1756 

EDT) without incident. The drone profile was from a launch point north 

of Kauai (Hawaiian Islands) down range over enroute islands past Midway, 

'\nth a similar return route and recovery of the hatch and payload in the 

vicini ty of Kaual. 

The range was approximately 3,000 miles which is less th~ full range 

of the drone but exactly as programmed for this flight. Wi tn the exception 

of momentary deviations while in progralllmfJd turns, the drone course was 

within two miles of course centerline. The maximum drone altitude was 

approximately 93,000 feet at termination fuel off. 

The hatch was recovered at 23502 (1950 EDT) by a JC-130 aircraft. 

The total drone flight to hatch ejection was 96 minutes. 

The above performance data is based on real time read-out. Further 

information will be available after evaluation of the processed film and 

instrumentation data. 

CC: NRC Staff FRANK: W. HARTLEY ,JR 

Colonel, USAF 

Director, Program D 

Approved for Release: 2018/11/16 C05115202 

BYE 12306-69 I' 

Cy ...:2..r of 3 cys 

Pg 1 of 1 pg ------'
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3604

___________

David Washington Spikes; *

Monique Caldwell Spikes, *

*

Appellants, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Century Management, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 4, 2000

Filed: May 18, 2000 

___________

Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Washington Spikes and Monique Caldwell Spikes appeal the district

court's adverse grant of summary judgment in the Spikes' negligence action against

Century Management, Inc. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we

conclude the grant of judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the district court.

We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

We deny Century Management's motions to strike portions of the Spikes'

appendix.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
99-1552.

#### State ex rel. Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. v. Mentor.

In Mandamus. Upon consideration of relators’ request for an expedited schedule,

IT IS ORDERED that the request is DENIED and that this cause is referred for a settlement conference pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6). This referral does not alter respondents’ duty under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) to file a response to relators’ complaint.

Douglas, J., dissents and would grant the motion.
#### F. G. Smith Piano Company, Appellant, vs. Buschek, Respondent.

*January 11*

January *30, 1912.*

*Sales: Breach of warranty.*

In an action for the purchase price of a piano, a finding by the jury that there was-a breach of a warranty against defects is *held*to be sustained by the evidence.

Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Manito-woc county: Michael KiewaN, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action to recover tbe balance of tbe purchase price of a piano.

Tbe defendant pleaded breach of warranty, seasonable rescission of tbe sale contract, and demand for tbe money already paid, and counterclaimed therefor.

Tbe court submitted tbe cause to tbe jury on tbe subject of whether tbe conceded warranty was breached. Tbe finding was for tbe defendant. All other questions requisite to be solved in her favor to support a judgment for her were so decided by tbe court without any complaint because any of them should have been submitted to tbe jury. Judgment was rendered for defendant, and plaintiff appealed upon tbe sole ground that tbe finding as to tbe piano being defective was not warranted by tbe evidence.

*Isaac Craite,*for tbe appellant.

*F. F.*Groelle, for tbe respondent.

Marshall, J.

It is the judgment of tbe court that tbe record does not sustain tbe contention on appellant’s part that there is no reasonable basis in tbe evidence for tbe jury finding complained of. Therefore tbe judgment must be affirmed.

*By tlie Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1058/2006

of 12 July 2006         

opening an invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   An invitation to tender is hereby opened for the reduction in the import duty referred to in Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 on maize to be imported into Spain.

2.   Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 shall apply save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.

Article 2

The invitation to tender shall be open until 31 August 2006. During that period, weekly invitations shall be issued with quantities and closing dates as shown in the notice of invitation to tender.

Article 3

Import licences issued under these invitations to tender shall be valid 50 days from the date they are issued within the meaning of Article 10(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 336, 23.12.1994, p. 22.

(3)OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1558/2005 (OJ L 249, 24.9.2005, p. 6).

----
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

r 

DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING 

WASINHOWN, D.C. 20201 

MEMORANDUM FOR ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DtrENst (SYSTLMS 

ANALYSIS) 

SUBJECT: MOL DCP 

I have sent you a copy of my memorandum to the Deputy Secretary 

of Defense resulting from your memo to me. DIA. and the Air Force. 

In accordance with our telcon of 31 January 1969, I will discuss your 

issues prior to the presentation to Mr. Packard and will not critique 

your paper as requested. You have received Gen. Carroll's brief' 

reply and Dr. Flax has indicated a willingness to participate in our 

discussion. 

It is hoped that the differences between your position and the recoup• 

mendations of the DIA. the Air Force, and ODDR&E can be resolved 

at that time. I suggest that you ask Dr. Flax, Gen. Carroll, and 

Gen. Stewart to join us for this discussion. 

Should agreement not be reached, perhaps your issues can be 

strengthened in the nest revision to the MOL DCP. 

John S. Foster, Jr.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP15-276-000]


MoGas Pipeline LLC; Notice of Technical Conference

    Take notice that a technical conference will be held on Tuesday, 
February 24, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time), in a room to 
be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission), 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    At the technical conference, the Commission Staff and the parties 
to the proceeding should be prepared to discuss all issues set for the 
technical conference as established in the January 30, 2015 Order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MoGas Pipeline LLC, 150 FERC ] 61,062 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#016062626472726863686d68757841676473622f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="660705050315150f040f0a0f121f260003140548010910">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with 
the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further 
information please contact Kenneth Witte at (202) 502-8057 or email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#58133d36363d2c30760f312c2c3d183e3d2a3b763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d46686363687965235a647979684d6b687f6e236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>.

     Dated: February 11, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03264 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
To	Whom	It	May	Concern:

If	you	would,	please	add	the	following	statement	as	part	of	my	333	Exemption request	in	reference	to	tracking	#	1jz - 8kml - 8hqt: The	completed	request	by	Square	1	Media	Productions	for	the	333	Exemption	was outlined	in	detail based	on	the	previous	submission	and	acceptance	of: 4th Dimension	Sight	&	Sound,	Inc. Exemption	#	12428 Regulatory	Docket	No. – FAA- 2015 - 1945 In	consideration	of	Square	1	Media’s	Request	and	establishing	a	consistent submission	process,	we	hope	you	cons ider	our	333	Exemption	request	as	it	follows the	same	necessary	guidelines	as	the	before - mentioned	company. Thank	you	for	your	consideration, Brandon	Monzyk Square	1	Media	Productions 314 - 808 - 2233
#### MOODY NURSING HOME, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 77-1322

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 25, 1978.

*1159Cleburne E. Gregory, III, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Julian M. Longley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Richard A. Olderman, Robert E. Kopp, Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Civ. Div., Appellate Section, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.

Before RONEY, GEE and PAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et*al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

This is an action seeking judicial review of an administrative determination limiting certain items of Medicare reimbursement to plaintiff nursing home under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1395 et seq.

Acting prior to the Supreme Court decision in *Califano v. Sanders,*430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977), the trial court asserted jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 701*et seq.,*relying on two decisions in this Circuit, *Gallo v. Mathews,*538 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1976), *modifying and withdrawing opinion*in 534 F.2d 1137 (6th Cir. 1976), and *Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation, Inc. v. Mathews,*534 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1976). The trial court ruled against plaintiff nursing home and for the agency on the merits.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court in *Califano v. Sanders, supra,*held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not afford an independent source of jurisdiction to review agency decisions. Thus, the ground for jurisdiction found by the trial court was erroneous.

The nursing home has asserted in its brief in this Court that the district court had federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331, even though it erroneously asserted jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act. This ground of jurisdiction was upheld in the second panel decision of *Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation, Inc.*v. *Mathews,*554 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1977).

Unhappily for plaintiff, this Court reheard *MacDonald*en banc, reversed the panel decision, and held that district courts do not have § 1331 federal question jurisdiction to review decisions of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare made under 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1395*et seq. Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation, Inc. v. Califano,*571 F.2d 328 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc).

The decision of the district court on the merits must be vacated. The complaint should have been dismissed. Following the guidance of the en banc court in *MacDonald, see*571 F.2d at 332, we order that this case be transferred to the Court of Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1406(c).

VACATED AND TRANSFERRED.