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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1000
       
<S>                                     <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            Mar-31-1997              
     
<CASH>                                        1,751                                           
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   651
<ALLOWANCES>                                    247
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              2,170
<PP&E>                                       13,802
<DEPRECIATION>                              (11,524)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                4,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           193
<BONDS>                                          26
<COMMON>                                      1,884
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                    2,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  4,448
<SALES>                                         619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                619
<CGS>                                           548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  71
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              71
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                     71
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .00
                                                  


</TABLE>
DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

98-2659.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Mazer.

On August 25, 1999, respondent filed an affidavit of compliance. The affidavit did not include the certificate of service required by S.CtPrac.R. XIV(2)(C). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that respondent’s affidavit of compliance be, and hereby is, stricken.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 9199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03317]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9013-5]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agencyy: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 02/03/2014 Through 02/07/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140035, Draft EIS, FHWA, NY, Interstate 87 (I-87) Exit 4 
Access Improvements, Comment Period Ends: 04/01/2014, Contact: Jonathan 
McDade 518-431-4127.
EIS No. 20140036, Final EIS, BIA, NV, RES Americas Moapa Solar Energy 
Center, Review Period Ends: 03/17/2014, Contact: Garry Cantley
    602-379-6750 Ext. 1256.
EIS No. 20140037, Final EIS, NPS, CA, Merced Wild and Scenic River 
Final Comprehensive Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 03/17/2014, 
Contact: Kathleen Morse 209-379-1110.
EIS No. 20140038, Draft Supplement, NMFS, 00, Fishery Management Plan 
for Regulating Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico, 
Comment Period Ends: 03/31/2014, Contact: Jess Beck-Stimpert 727-551-
5755.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20140012, Draft EIS, HHS, GA, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention Roybal Campus 2015-2025 Master Plan, Comment Period Ends: 
04/10/2014, Contact: George Chandler 404-245-2763. Revision to the FR 
Notice Published 01/24/2014; Extending Comment Period from 03/10/2014 
to 04/10/2014.

    Dated: February 11, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-03317 Filed 2-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
--...- - ---=--

• I 

' -t--~ ' ' 

Lm· ,, I I 

--- I 

I . -t-

-+-+-~·-t-+~--+-t-+-"f-+--+-i--+-+-~~~~~-t-+--t-i---+-+~ + I 

\ 

' . 

) )1-oved for Release b-· NSA on 04-24-2014 nnsuant to E.O. 1352 
-~· ' .. , ' 

. ' 

-- ,".' 1 ~, ... t·· 

! . ·r 

•. 

' 

,; 

j ...... !._ 

t, I 

A ---A~,- . A 

~/~ ; I . , 

L... I · ~ 

i 

·t 

! 

' 

J, 

.-.....:~.n ~""' . , ..,, 

~ 
if \ 

,,,.. -! 

4- ' _J.t l·~ ~ vi . !'· 

1 . 

! 

.i 

.j 

I 

1 

t I 

! ' 

t 

·~-·j .. '.. '' ! • " 

• t· • ' 

~ r , 

. , 

! !

I 

' I .. 4 ''"t· 

I I 

t 

. i 

,,.. ' .... 

l 

t·· j ·-· 

j t· 

i 

~ .,. " 

1 

.l 

I 

j 

: ll, t·-. 

\ 

I 

I 

I 

·-t-··· 

t 

' ·1 • ~-

! 

;{ 

.. :!!. 

, . 

I· 
I • 1' 

REF ID:A65416· .• 

" 

+-

' I 

' . 

~ ; i • .. 

. . ~ ~ , . ! 

' . l . ' ! • 

I t • 

' 

1 I 

.j . l 

I ! 

I 

1 i 

l 

I ' 

i 

l i I ! 

·+ • i 

' i - '" ~ ~ ... 

~ l 

t ~ . ~ - ~ 

; . 1 

i 1 ' I • I 

i I 

l · -j i 

L "~ ".*, ~ ·1 ', I 

I ' 

, I . ·' I .. ~-·· t· 

l . l l. \_j -~~-.i 

I I 

j 
REF ID:A65416 

! 

• ! 

• ... ~ ' ~ 4 • 

' . 

i 

T t ~, ' 
REF ID:A65416
From: Tok7o 

To: Santiago 

19 December 1941 

(J-19) 

/11E7 

REF ID:A690. 

Action Santiago Circular #093 to Rio de Janeiro 

You are no doubt familiar, b7 now, 

of our great victories in the war, which are indeed greater 

than we expected, and the da7 or achieving control or aouthem 

Pacific waters can be imagined not to be vecy tar ott. Trade 

with South American countries, especial.17 those on the west 

coast, Chile and Peru, will be resumed ver7 short17. We are 

planning to send merchant ships, even in the !ace ot some danger, 

to bring back copper, nitro, etc., which we will bu,y trom these 

countries, as well as supply these countries with merchandise 

which the7 depend on Japan, the United. States or Britain to 

supply. 

For this reason please call in all 

Japanese firm representatives in your country, and explain this 

matter to th•, and tell them to take orders .f'rom their customers 

for Japanese shipnents ot goods tor delivery in March, and also 

instruct them on importations of these goods. Also please wire 

immediately general reaction to this order taking action by our 

representatives there. 

c.-~~t &..-.. ltc~" ~ ~~c.L~ '.\. 

~ 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 12-19-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

JD-1: 7767 SBeRB! (Y) Navy Trans. 12-24-41 (J) 

-- L• ' ' 

.. \ I,-

,~ _:
#### Hull vs. Mallory.

*November 27*

December *12, 1882.*

Justices’ Courts. *Judgment on verdict to be rendered*instanter.

Under see. 3662, It. S. (which provides that where a verdict shall be rendered in favor of either party the justice shall *forthwith*render judgment), a justice of the peace must render judgment *instanter,*upon a verdict. By a delay (in this case of fourteen hours), he loses jurisdiction, and his judgment rendered after such delay is void.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Green*County.

The cáse is sufficiently stated in tbe opinion. The defendant appealed from the judgment of the circuit court. -

*P. J.*Clawson, for the appellant.

The cause was submitted for the respondent on the brief of *B. Dv/nwiddie:*

There was -no adjournment in this case, but .judgment was rendered and entered in the docket on the same day that the verdict was rendered. This is just what is meant by the word “ forthwith.” The legal meaning of that word is the same as *instcmter;*and *instanter*means during the day or within the day. Bouvier’s Law Diet.; *Wearne v. Smith,*32 "Wis., 415. In all the cases that have been decided by this court, the justice had adjourned the cause, after receiving verdict, until the following day.

OetoN, J.

This action was tried before a justice of the peace and a jury. At two o’clock in the forenoon the jury brought in their verdict for the plaintiff of $15, and were discharged. Immediately on the coining in of this verdict, the justice, without adjournment even, left his office and went to his home, and did not return again to his office until four o’clock in the afternoon of the same day. He did not declare or pronounce, render or enter, any judgment in the case until that time, and then rendered and entered judgment for *356the plaintiff on said verdict for $15 damages and costs. On *certiorari*the circuit court affirmed the judgment of the justice as to the damages, and modified it as to the costs.

The point is made that the justice lost jurisdiction to render the judgment by delay, and that the judgment is therefore void. The statute (sec. 3662, R. S.) provides that “ in all cases where a verdict shall be rendered in favor of either party, the justice *shall forthwith*render judgment and enter the same in his docket.” The word *forthwith*in this statute has been construed in the most emphatic manner to mean *instcmter*by this court in several cases, and it is no longer an open question. *McNamara v. Spees,*25 Wis., 539; *Perkins v.*Jones, 28 Wis., 243; *Wearne v. Smith,*32 Wis., 412; *Kleinsteuber v. Schumacher,*35 Wis., 608. Fourteen hours’ delay in rendering and entering judgment under this statute is far beyond *instanter,*by the most liberal construction. The justice clearly lost jurisdiction to render the judgment, and it is therefore void.

*By the*Gourt.— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to reverse the judgment of the justice.
# C_2014287EN.01000201.xml

| 28.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

27 August 2014

2014/C 287/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3177 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,88 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4539 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79400 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1608 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2068 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1555 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,750 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,55 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1967 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3976 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8425 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4102 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4372 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2123 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5735 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6433 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 336,71 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,0324 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0952 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6308 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 389,55 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1459 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,530 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 47,4986 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,056 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9722 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2217 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,6565 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3177

JPY

Japanese yen

136,88

DKK

Danish krone

7,4539

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79400

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1608

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2068

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1555

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,750

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,55

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1967

RON

Romanian leu

4,3976

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8425

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4102

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4372

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2123

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5735

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6433

KRW

South Korean won

1 336,71

ZAR

South African rand

14,0324

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0952

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6308

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 389,55

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1459

PHP

Philippine peso

57,530

RUB

Russian rouble

47,4986

THB

Thai baht

42,056

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9722

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2217

INR

Indian rupee

79,6565

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
I • 

I \. 

;~ I l 

i~ ' 

;~ I 

Finance and Accounting 

Of'fieer 

REF ID:A63515 

Can.tract DAl.8-119-sc-lQS), 

SIGP0-2(JJif) 

J'ile ?lo. 267-LIR-58 

3 Peb 1961 1I~35l5/ps 

In accordance vlth telephone COllversat1on between Colonel Hobbs and 

Mr. Jibroney of this ottice, it is understood that the amount or funds that. 

Wl'e or1.g1na.lly deobllgated from. the above subject Contract will be !"e8tored. 

'lbis is to advise you that the contract With MJ:o. Williul F. !'r1.edman is still. 

in process aa the caupletion date was delayed by the Aaency, and that it is 

intended that Mr. Friedmm COJl;plete hia contract and then t.be balance o~ the 

:f'unds vill be paid. 

~ 

JACK J • 1f.E:WMAlf ...-~ 

Contracting Specialist 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 11-18-2013 pursuantto E.O. 1352e
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2016

No. 04-16-00439-CV

SAYERS INVESTMENTS, LP., Rachel Shirley Rachelle, Shea Management Co., L.C., and 

William Earl McDonald,

Appellants

v.

Joseph E. MINIHAN a/k/a Joe E. Minihan, Sharon Joy Minihan, 1150 Partners, Ltd., SCAP of 

TEXAS Inc., James C. Woo and Davidson Troilo Ream & Garza,

Appellees

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-15-0000184

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on October 3, 2016. The clerk of this court issued a 

notice to appellant that the brief was late and instructed appellant to either file the brief or a 

motion for extension of time no later than October 24, 2016. Neither the brief nor a motion for 

extension of time has been filed. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing 

within ten (10) days from the date of this order stating why this appeal should not be dismissed 

for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10473

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO ALFREDO ORDONEZ-COREAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-265-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Mario Alfredo Ordonez-Coreas has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Ordonez-Coreas has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10473 Document: 00513755571 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2016
No. 16-10473

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-10473 Document: 00513755571 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2016
.. 

I ~F ID: A56934 

'TELEPHONE 

EXECUTIVE 3-1940 

MOP/4475 / --

,/ 

- 4. Friedman, 

___ .,,......... S/ASST, N .S.A., 

N.s.s., 

3801 Nebraska Avenue N .v·., 

".'nshington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. 'Friedman, 

• _, 

,, - / , 

/ 

BRITISH JOINT SERVICES MISSION 

MAIN NAVY BUILDING 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

9th March 1955 

In reply to your letter 0£ 1st February, we have 

just heard that G.C.H.Q. intended the Japanese History 

£or you to keep. 

Yours sincerely, 

0 USC 3605 • 

YJ°olonel 

eclassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-21-2014 pursuant to E.O. 

3526
# C_2014186EN.01000402.xml

| 18.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7214 — PAG/ Ibericar/ Ibericar K)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 186/05

On 10 June 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7214. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7214. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### Nevil and another vs. Clifford and others.

*March 2*

March *24, 1881.*

Appeal to Supbeme Court. *(1) From ivhat determinations an appeal ivill lie. (2) How to procure review of refusal to admit any evidence under . complaint.*

*1.*An appeal will not lie from any ruling or decision of the court which is no part of the record except as made so by a bill of exceptions.

2. Where, on the trial, an objection'to the admission of any evidence under the complaint, on the ground of its insufficiency, is sustained, the plaintiff,. if he wishes to have the ruling reversed, should not only have a bill of exceptions settled, preserving such ruling and his exception thereto, but should have judgment entered in accordance with the ruling, and appeal from such judgment.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Book*County.

Eor the plaintiffs (who were appellants) there was a brief by *Winans c&*MeElroy, and oral argument by *Mr. MeElroy.*

For the defendants and respondents there was a brief by *EcL. F. Carpenter*and *Bennett <&*Bale, and oral argument by *S. J. Todd*and *J. B. Bennett.*

Cole, O. J.

In this case the bill of exceptions recites that on the trial the defendants’ counsel objected to any testimony being given under the complaint, which objection was sustained by the circuit court. The plaintiffs’ counsel then asked leave to amend the complaint by inserting additional allegations; but the court refused to allow any amendment further than to set up therein what was admitted in the answers. In *484tbe brief of plaintiffs’ counsel it is stated, that tbe appeal is from tbe order dismissing tbe complaint. But it does not appear from tbe record that any order or judgment dismissing tbe complaint has ever been entered in tbe cause. Tbe objection is taken *in limine,*that there is nothing from which tbe plaintiffs could appeal. Tbe objection is insuperable. Of course there should have been a judgment entered dismissing tbe complaint. No appeal lies from anything *contained in the hill of exceptions*and not entered of record. The practice in these cases, where an objection is taken on the trial to a pleading, in the nature of a demurrer *ore temos,*is pointed out in *Johannes v.*Youngs, 42 Wis., 401. The plaintiffs should not only have settled their bill of exceptions, preserving their exception to the ruling of the court, but should have entered a judgment in accordance with that ruling, and then have taken an appeal from such judgment.

As the record stands, it is obvious there is nothing for this court to review, and the appeal must therefore be dismissed.

*By the Court.*— It is so ordered.

Cassoday, J., took no part.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 54 (Friday, March 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06426]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0456]


Pediatric Stakeholder Meeting; Request for Comments; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a document 
entitled ``Pediatric Stakeholder Meeting; Request for Comments'' that 
appeared in the Federal Register of February 26, 2015 (80 FR 10493). 
The document announced a public meeting seeking input from patient 
groups, consumer groups, regulated industry, academia and other 
interested parties to obtain any recommendations or information 
relevant to the report to Congress that FDA is required to submit 
concerning pediatrics, as outlined in the Food and Drug Administration 
Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). The document was published with the 
incorrect docket number. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, 
Planning, Legislation, and Analysis, Food and Drug Administration, 
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 
301-796-9115.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of February 26, 
2015, in FR Doc. 2015-03974, on page 10493, the following correction is 
made:
    On page 10493, in the first column, the Docket No. heading, 
``[Docket No. FDA-20115-N-0456]'' is corrected to read ``[Docket No. 
FDA-2015-N-0456]''.

    Dated: March 17, 2015.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-06426 Filed 3-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P