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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000353153
<NAME>                        CAIRN ENERGY USA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         2492
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3449
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6623
<PP&E>                                         213686
<DEPRECIATION>                                 79343
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 141884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10089
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       176
<OTHER-SE>                                     92919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   141884
<SALES>                                        8290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8357
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             866
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2547
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .15
        


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT G. HOULE, 

 

 Appellant,

v.

CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N. A.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00234-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2015-CCV01442)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to Submit Results of 

Mediation and ORDERS that the mediation process be extended until January 14, 2017. Upon 

completion of mediation, the parties are directed to comply with the instructions set forth in our 

order of September 16, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of November, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
Page 1 of 2 

Department of Defense Comments on the 

Draft Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium Charge Questions 

Comments submitted by: Chemical Material Risk Management Directorate 

 Organization: Department of Defense Date Submitted: May 6, 201

*Comment categories: Science or methods (S); Editorial, grammar/spelling, clarifications needed (E); or Other (O). Also please inoutcome, conclusions or implementation of the assessment. 

Comment 

No. Section 

Page & 

Paragraph 

(enter 

“Global” if 

report 

sectionwide) 

Comment Suggested Action, R

 and References (if n

1. (A); (B). Pages 1 and 

2. 

The reviewers should be asked if they agree with the species selected to derive the toxicity values from the NTP 2008 studies, that is, the mouse data rather than the rat data, which some may believe may be more relevant to humans. For the carcinogenicity endpoint, the oral mucosa avoids the uncertainty of amount of reduction in the GI tract. 

Please add the question: “Do the selection of the mouse as for derivation of a human oral estimate?” 

2. (B). New 

Question. 

We understand that both EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment and Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) both have prepared hexavalent chromium toxicology/risk assessment-related draft documents. We believe that a comparison between the two would be beneficial for the reviewers and all documents should be made available. 

Please add the question: “Are of the assessments of hexavaltoxicity performed by NCEA comparable?” 

3. (B). Page 2. #2. Because of considerable uncertainty regarding the 

specific mode of action by which chromium caused either the mouse intestinal tumors and the rat oral mucosa tumors we believe that there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion of a mutagenic mode of action. 

We appreciate EPA’s includinconcerning mutagenic mode oaction in the charge questionsto add a sentence to that questyou believe there is sufficient determine a mode of action as current Agency guidance and 
Page 2 of 2 

Department of Defense Comments on the 

Draft Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium Charge Questions 

Comments submitted by: Chemical Material Risk Management Directorate 

 Organization: Department of Defense Date Submitted: May 6, 201

*Comment categories: Science or methods (S); Editorial, grammar/spelling, clarifications needed (E); or Other (O). Also please inoutcome, conclusions or implementation of the assessment. 

Comment 

No. Section 

Page & 

Paragraph 

(enter 

“Global” if 

report 

sectionwide) 

Comment Suggested Action, R

 and References (if n

4. (B) Page 2. #3. We acknowledge that EPA included a charge 

question concerning whether the 2008 rodent study should be selected for derivation of the oral cancer 

slope factor. We suggest EPA consider adding the additional question specifically about human data to this charge question. 

Please add the additional quesexisting human data related to chromium carcinogenicity sufdetermine whether the two-yestudy in rodents (NTP, 2008) to use as a point of departure human oral cancer slope facto
# C_2015348EN.01000101.xml

| 21.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7651 — Bain Capital/Davigel Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 348/01)

On 14 October 2015, 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 French 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 32015M7651. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7651. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 8, 2022

No. 04-21-00295-CR

Brian Dale NIXON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 454th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-04-11937-CR

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s brief was originally due to be filed on March 7, 2022. On March 1, 2022, 

appellee filed a motion for extension of time to file the brief until April 18, 2022—an extension 

of forty-two days. Appellee’s motion is GRANTED. 

Appellee is ORDERED to file its brief no later than April 18, 2022. Appellee is 

advised that counsel’s heavy case load or demanding work schedule is not an extraordinary 

circumstance warranting further requests for an extension of time. 

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of March, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofCalif Acquisitions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/ Anthony N. DeMint                                    

Anthony N. DeMint

President and Chief Accounting Officer

May 5, 2006
CHRISTIANA TRUST v STRITZINGER IN THE TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT 

D-1-GN-16-001852 

NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND REQUEST TO WAIVE FEES 

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF TRIAL COURT DECISION 

Appellant hereby requests the court take notice of his appeal to the 5

th Circuit Court of Appeals in 

Dallas, Texas and NOT to the Third Court of Appeals Texas because Appellant believes the Third Court 

of Appeals has multiple conflicts of Interest in the case, the Moving party is a member of the Texas Bar 

in Dallas, and Appellant has filed cross-criminal claims against two Texas Judges in Travis County in this 

case for procedural and Constitutional violations which are pending the CCA review. 

Appellant notices that Ms. Heather McNally provided no notice of hearing and the order of the Trial 

Court was in fact a Due Process issue under both the Texas and US Constitution. 

MOTION TO TRANSFER THE RECORD TO THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ELECTRONICALLY 

Appellant requests the court transfer the order of foreclosure as the only docket entry along with a copy 

of the current docket to the Fifth Circuit at the same time as this filing as the designated record. 

Signed this day, 

 John S. Stritzinger 

John S. Stritzinger 

“Affidavit of Appellant – My name is John John S. Stritzinger, and I am the appellant, and a member of 

the Texas Bar by Court Order of Chief Judge John Dietz under FM-04-004690 in November of 2007. In 

this case neither the Travis County Court Administrator or the Moving Party ever served notice of a 

hearing, and therefore the order appealed is invalid and in error under Constitutional Due Process 

Grounds and for violations of local rules of Travis County Texas. 

Furthermore, I believe the Trial Court has no Jurisdiction over the case due to 28 USC 1332 being in 

force and I have asked Judge Byrne who was assigned this case to sign an order of transfer on 

submission which was well served electronically and by facsimile under 28 USC 1441. Another Judge 

who had no business reviewing this case apparently signed the order complained on the Emergency 

Docket which is not specified for contested matters, and under travis County rules had to provide the 

10/18/2016 12:05:15 PM 

Velva L. Price 

District Clerk 

Travis County 

D-1-GN-16-001852

Victoria Chambers

ACCEPTED

03-16-00761-CV

13848973

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

11/17/2016 11:59:00 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 RECEIVED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/17/2016 11:59:00 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
standard interval for a trial this is normally at least ten days from the previous Wednesday. In other 

words if I filed in Travis County on the 19th of October, I could not have a trial until the 31st of October in 

a non-Jury week, or the following week of the 7th of November if the 31st was a Jury week in Travis 

County”.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6202

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDRE ALBERT ADDISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-210; CA-04-1205-WMN) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 2, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Albert Addison, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Andre Albert Addison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Addison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 53 (Thursday, March 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 14413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06286]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION


Extension of Comment Period for Agricultural Worker Population 
Data for Basic Field--Migrant Grants

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) published in the Federal 
Register on February 3, 2015, a notice for comment regarding new data 
from the U.S. Department of Labor regarding agricultural workers and 
their dependents. LSC is extending the public comment period from March 
20 to April 20, 2015, in response to requests for additional time and 
data.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to Mark Freedman, Senior 
Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St. NW., 
Washington, DC 20007; 202-295-1623 (phone); 202-337-6519 (fax); 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7419120611111019151a341807175a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="462b20342323222b2728062a352568212930">[email protected]</span></a>. Electronic submissions are preferred via email with 
attachments in Acrobat PDF format. Written comments sent to any other 
address or received after the end of the comment period may not be 
considered by LSC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Freedman, Senior Assistant 
General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St. NW., 
Washington, DC 20007; 202-295-1623 (phone); 202-337-6519 (fax); 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#422f24302727262f232c022e31216c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94f9f2e6f1f1f0f9f5fad4f8e7f7baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to requests for additional time 
and data, LSC is extending the comment period noticed in the Federal 
Register on February 3, 2015, 80 FR 5791, from March 20, 2015 to April 
20, 2015. In that document, LSC sought comment regarding new data from 
the U.S. Department of Labor regarding agricultural workers and their 
dependents. LSC proposes using this data to determine funding levels 
for Basic Field-Migrant grants and related adjustments to Basic Field--
General grants. A description of these data and other related documents 
is available at: http://www.lsc.gov/about/mattersforcomment.php.

    Dated: March 13, 2015.
Stefanie K. Davis,
Assistant General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-06286 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7050-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



[Exhibit 11]

North Fork Bancorporation, Inc.

COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
June 30, 2003
(unaudited)

|                                                     |  |                |             |                |  |      |             |      |  |   |             |  |  |   |             | 
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------- | ----------- | -------------- |  | ---- | ----------- | ---- |  | - | ----------- |  |  | - | ----------- | 
|                                                     |  | Three Months   |             | Six Months    
|                                                     |  | Ended June 30, |             | Ended June 30,
|                                                     |  |                |             |               
|                                                     |  | 2003           |             | 2002           |  | 2003 |             | 2002
|                                                     |  |                |             |                |  |      |             |     
|Net Income                                           |  | $              | 96,112,378  |                |  | $    | 104,450,998 |      |  | $ | 199,651,559 |  |  | $ | 202,750,941 | 
|Common and Common Equivalent Shares:                 |  |                |             |                |  |      |             |      |  |   |             |  |  |   |             | 
|Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding           |  |                | 152,911,128 |                |  |      | 160,577,644 |      |  |   | 153,417,362 |  |  |   | 160,444,876 | 
|Weighted Average Common Equivalent Shares            |  |                | 1,540,138   |                |  |      | 1,910,217   |      |  |   | 1,543,390   |  |  |   | 1,888,623   | 
|                                                     |  |                |             |                |  |      |             |      |  |   |             |  |  |   |             | 
|Weighted Average Common and Common Equivalent Shares |  |                | 154,451,266 |                |  |      | 162,487,861 |      |  |   | 154,960,752 |  |  |   | 162,333,499 | 
|                                                     |  |                |             |                |  |      |             |      |  |   |             |  |  |   |             | 
|Net Income Per Share  Basic                         |  | $              | .63         |                |  | $    | .65         |      |  | $ | 1.30        |  |  | $ | 1.26        | 
|Net Income Per Share  Diluted                       |  |                | .62         |                |  |      | .64         |      |  |   | 1.29        |  |  |   | 1.25        | 

30
1 Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA) Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:20 AM To: 'kcgisler@gmail.com' Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Request for Additional Inform ation: Principla Inc (FAA-2015-2497)

August 27, 2015

Dear Mr. Gisler:
This letter is to inform you th at the following information is mi ssing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 2497). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, S ection 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operat ion please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by September 10, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRANCE TREMAINE WYLLIE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00063-JAB-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Tremaine Wyllie, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael 

Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Tremaine Wyllie appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence 

reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Wyllie, No. 1:05-cr-00063-JAB-1 

(M.D.N.C. July 18, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED