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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Time Warner Inc. for the twelve months ended December
31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             442
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,892
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,007
<INVENTORY>                                      2,846
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,449
<PP&E>                                           3,398
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,407
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,640
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,618
<BONDS>                                         10,925
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,640
<SALES>                                         14,582
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,582
<CGS>                                            8,210
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 891
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    586
<INCOME-TAX>                                       418
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)
        

</TABLE>
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-OII-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00409-CR

STANFORD REYNOLDS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1334683D

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

Appellant Stanford Reynolds, who filed a pro se notice of appeal, now 

wishes to dismiss his appeal. We have considered “Appellant’s Motion To 

Dismiss Appeal.” No decision of this court having been delivered before we 

received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 1, 2016
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GERARD MORRISON and

BARBARA MORRISON

,

Appellant s

,

v.

THE LEGACY REALTY

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00 044

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law

of Bastrop County, Texas

(TC# 2 2

- 21581 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be

dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3

. 1 Finding that Appellants have failed to file a brief or a motion

for extension of time to file the brief, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

On April 6, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellants by letter that the brief was

past due and no motion for extension of time had been filed. The letter advised Appellants that the

Court intended to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless Appellants responded within

ten days and showed grounds for continuing the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1) . Appellants

1 This case was transferred from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the

Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 . We follow the precedent of the Third Court of Appeals

to the extent it might conflict with our own. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 41.3

.2 have not filed the brief, a n extension motion, or any response to the Court’s inquiry. Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c)

.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justic e

April 21, 2023

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, J.J.
# C_2016225EN.01000201.xml

| 22.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 June 2016

(2016/C 225/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1314 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 118,39 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4358 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,76755 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3240 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0850 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3718 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,064 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,08 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3991 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5408 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2791 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5073 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4451 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7778 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5804 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5169 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 304,05 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,6044 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4466 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5185 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 005,19 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5563 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,379 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,7638 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,837 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,8100 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,0037 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 76,4493 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1314

JPY

Japanese yen

118,39

DKK

Danish krone

7,4358

GBP

Pound sterling

0,76755

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3240

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0850

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3718

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,064

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,08

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3991

RON

Romanian leu

4,5408

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2791

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5073

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4451

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7778

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5804

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5169

KRW

South Korean won

1 304,05

ZAR

South African rand

16,6044

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4466

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5185

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 005,19

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5563

PHP

Philippine peso

52,379

RUB

Russian rouble

72,7638

THB

Thai baht

39,837

BRL

Brazilian real

3,8100

MXN

Mexican peso

21,0037

INR

Indian rupee

76,4493

---

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

1

Source

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

CAROLYN S. FAIR,

Petitioner

v.

REGENCY FINANCE COMPANY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 203 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Richmond.

#### Richardson v. The Commonwealth.

January 15th, 1885.

1. Criminal *Proceedings*— Venue.—Indictment not sustained without proof that offence was committed in county wherein venue is laid; but a strong presumption thereof raised by the evidence suffices.

Error to judgment of circuit court of Henry county, on an indictment against B. E. Richardson, for the murder of Albert Richardson. The jury found accused guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and fixed his term of imprisonment in the penitentiary at five years. Prisoner’s motion that the verdict, be set aside and a new trial awarded him being overruled, the court entered judgment according to the verdict. To which the prisoner excepted, and obtained from one of the judges of this court a writ of error and *supersedeas.*

*Wm. M.*Peyton, for the prisoner.

*Attorney- General F. S. Blair,*for the Commonwealth.

Lewis, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Of the various errors assigned it is necessary to notice one only, namely — the refusal of the circuit court to set aside the verdict and grant the prisoner a new trial.

The offence is alleged in the indictment to have been committed in the county of Henry; but, as appears from the cer-*125tifieate of facts proven, no proof as to the venue was submitted, to the jury. The motion for a new trial ought, therefore, to have been granted. An indictment cannot be sustained without proof that the offence was committed in the county where the venue is laid. 2 East’s P. C. 992; 1 Chitt. Crim. Law, 557; *Gordon*v. *The State,*4 Mo. 375; *Brown*v. *The State,*27 Ala. 47; *Holeman*v. *The*State, 13 Ark. 105; *Ewell*v. *The State,*6 Merger, 364.

It has been held, however, that if the evidence raises a violent presumption that the offence was committed in the county mentioned in the indictment, it will be sufficient. *The State*v. *Burns,*48 Mo. 438. In that case the prisoner was indicted for murder alleged to have been committed in the county of St. Louis. At the trial the witnesses all spoke of the crime as having been committed on a certain street, and a diagram was exhibited showing the location of the house; hut it was not expressly stated that the street was in the city of St. Louis. The court instructed the jury that if they believed from the evidence that the prisoner killed the deceased in the county of St. Louis, then they should find him guilty, etc. ITe was convicted and sentenced to be executed, and on appeal the judgment was affirmed. See also 1 "Wharf. Crim. Law, sec. 601; 1 Bishop’s Crim. Proc., sec. 107. Bdt as no such presumption is raised by the evidence in the present case, the judgment must be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

JUDGMENT REVERSED.
### Docket No: FAA

- 2015

- 4809 Dir ID: 2015

- NM

- 012

- AD

C on t acts. W ith w h o m o u tside t he F A A h a s th i s prop os al been di s cu s sed?

Organ i zat i on P erson C ont a cted D ate R e s pon s e

N at i o n a l B u s ine s s Air c r af t As s o ci at i o n E li C ott i 1 / 22 / 1 5

Re g i o n a l Airline A ss o ci at i o n 1 / 22 / 1 5

Air c r af t O w ners & P il ot s A s s o ci at i o n R o bert Ha ck m a n 1 / 22 / 1 5

A T A Jo e White 1 / 22 / 1 5
[Civ. No. 1117.

Fourth Appellate District.

June 9, 1934.]

#### CLARA H. NICOLL, Appellant, v. THE FIRST NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK OF SAN DIEGO (a Corporation), Respondent.

W. S. Staley for Appellant.

*196James G-. Pfanstiel and John A. Hewicker for Respondent.

MARKS, J.

Respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal upon the sole ground ‘ ‘ That said attempted appeal from the ‘Order sustaining Demurrer without leave to amend’ is not an appealable order.”

An examination of the record discloses that the complaint contains three causes of action; that a general demurrer to the first and third causes of action was sustained' without leave to amend and overruled as to the second cause of action.

The notice of appeal contains a notice that it was taken “from the ‘Order Sustaining Demurrer Without Leave to Amend’, dated January 4th, 1934, and entered in Minute Book 117, at page 387, Department four (4) of the above entitled court. This appeal is taken from the said Order Sustaining defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend, to plaintiff’s First and Third causes of action, and from the whole of the said Order and any and all Orders, and/or judgments made and entered in pursuance thereof.”

It is well settled that an appeal cannot be taken from an order sustaining a demurrer. (See. 963, Code Civ. Proc.) Here the appeal was also taken from the judgment made and entered in pursuance of the order.

An appeal from a judgment cannot “be dismissed on the ground that it was taken after the rendition of such judgment or order and before formal entry”. (Sec. 939, Code Civ. Proc.)

As the motion to dismiss is made on the sole ground that the appeal was taken from the order sustaining the demurrer and it was actually taken from this order and the judgment, the motion must be now denied, reserving the right to dismiss the attempted appeal from the order when the case is considered on its merits. It is so ordered.

Barnard, P. J., concurred.

Jennings, J., being absent, did not participate herein.
#### Manuel U. Musler, Plaintiff, *v.*Brooks, Inc., Defendant.*

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

November 19, 1937.

*John Bogart,*for the plaintiff.

*Morris Pottish,*for the defendant.

*

Affd., 253 App. Div. 793.

Latter, J.

The plaintiff moves for reargument of the motion heretofore made granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. It appears that on the original application plaintiff had heretofore stipulated that he would not file any further affidavits in consideration of his being permitted additional time to *798submit an opposing affidavit. In support of the present motion he submits an affidavit which is replete with new matter. The defendant urges that this affidavit be disregarded by the court, *first,*because of the stipulation above referred to, and *second,*because of the well-settled principle of law that rearguments must necessarily be confined to the matter contained on the original application.

The objections raised by the defendant on this application have been considered by the court. While the defendant’s position is technically correct, yet had the plaintiff applied for permission to file his present affidavit for the court’s consideration on the original motion, in the exercise of his discretion this would have been authorized. The court, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, will consider also that the plaintiff applies herein for leave to file his present affidavit on the original motion and that the court consider the same as though it had been timely presented.

The statements contained in the plaintiff’s present affidavit have been read by the court and noted. Although these statements might not receive much weight by a trial court or jury in deciding in his favor, nevertheless, they do raise questions of fact which, had they been properly and timely presented on the original motion, would have been sufficient to require the court to deny summary judgment.

Under the circumstances disclosed herein the motion for reargument is granted upon payment of ten dollars costs to defendant. The court will permit the plaintiff’s present affidavit to be filed as though the same had been presented on the original motion upon payment of the costs. Upon such reargument the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is accordingly denied. Settle order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          12,285
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,740
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    122,653
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          25,416
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            26,186
<LOANS>                                        163,079
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 338,605
<DEPOSITS>                                     293,308
<SHORT-TERM>                                       728
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,075
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,476
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 338,605
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,276
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,967
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   195
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,438
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,760
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,768
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,670
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,641
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,563
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,105
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,105
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.85
<LOANS-NON>                                        970
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,119
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   369
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,407
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      763
<RECOVERIES>                                       205
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,149
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,504
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            645
        

</TABLE>
NO. 12-16-00291-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TREVAUGHN TRAYLOR, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Trevaughn Traylor pleaded guilty to theft of property. The trial court placed Appellant 

on deferred adjudication community supervision. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate

guilt. Appellant pleaded “true” to violating several conditions of his community supervision. 

The trial court found Appellant guilty of theft and sentenced Appellant to confinement in a state 

jail facility for two years. 

The trial court signed a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the court

certified that the defendant has waived the right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The 

certification was signed by Appellant and his counsel and is included in the record on appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered November 30, 2016.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 30, 2016

NO. 12-16-00291-CR

TREVAUGHN TRAYLOR,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0042-16)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and 

that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision 

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16492-16493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07078]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9066]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Pleasure and Piety: The Art of Joachim Wtewael'' 
Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March

[[Page 16493]]

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Pleasure and Piety: The Art of Joachim 
Wtewael,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, from on or about June 28, 
2015, until on or about October 4, 2015, at the Museum of Fine Arts, 
Houston, Houston, Texas, from on or about November 1, 2015, until on or 
about January 31, 2016, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including 
lists of the exhibit objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy 
and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department 
of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e1d0b0d1a0701005c5a5b572e1d1a0f1a0b40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4033252334292f2e727475790033342134256e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>). The 
mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: March 10, 2015.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-07078 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


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