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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                     1,678  
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     1,314
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                3,038  
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                    12,480  
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                      12,167 
<LOANS>                                   46,404
<ALLOWANCE>                                  300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            66,293  
<DEPOSITS>                                52,047  
<SHORT-TERM>                               1,750 
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          402 
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                12,085 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            66,293  
<INTEREST-LOAN>                            2,579 
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            933
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                           3,512
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         1,923
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,979
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                      1,533
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                 70
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            11
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                            1,421
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              193
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   193
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                 143
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                              3.20
<LOANS-NON>                                  594
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             300
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                 70
<RECOVERIES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            300
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         300
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008116EN.01001702.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/17

---

Action brought on 17 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-117/08)

(2008/C 116/30)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kontou-Durande and L. Pignataro)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/62/EC (1) of 30 September 2005 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards Community standards and specifications relating to a quality system for blood establishments, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/62/EC (1) of 30 September 2005 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards Community standards and specifications relating to a quality system for blood establishments, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/62 into domestic law expired on 31 August 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 41.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                             1,000
<CURRENCY>                          US DOLLARS
       
<S>                                <C>        
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                              1
<CASH>                                   6,833
<SECURITIES>                             8,505
<RECEIVABLES>                           12,776
<ALLOWANCES>                               290
<INVENTORY>                                 90
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        29,088
<PP&E>                                  14,026
<DEPRECIATION>                           9,613
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          40,704
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   23,966
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                   105
<OTHER-SE>                               8,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            40,704
<SALES>                                 39,815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        39,815
<CGS>                                   15,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           36,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          4,230
<INCOME-TAX>                             1,004
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      3,226
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             3,226
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.30
        

</TABLE>
U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave ., SE Washington, DC 20590 Re : Amendment to Exemption 12383- Formation Environmental Dear Sir or Madam: On August 10, 2015 Formation Environmental was issued an exemption, Regulatory Docket No FAA-2015-1822 and exemption numbered 12383 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of aerial photography 

## I inspection 

## I mapping ; (2) operation over and/or in non-restricted National Parks, National Forests, and non-navigable airspace using nonintrusive recording devices; and (3) operation in otherwise unrestricted U.S . States and Territories. Formation Environmental hereby respectfully requests an amendment to the exemption to allow an additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the Exemption . Formation Environmental wishes to additionally operate several additional UAS platforms under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption . All of the requested platforms are listed as approved under docket number FAA-2007-3330 at www . regulations.gov: • DJI Phantom 4 • B i rdseyeview FireFly 6 • E386 (Event38) • Phoenix Aerial Systems Vapor 55 • Pulse Aerospace Vapor 55 • Tuffwing UAV Mapper All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms ofthe Exemption . As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking only for the addition of another type of unmanned aerial vehicle , Formation Environmental respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment . Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any question or concerns concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption . 2500 SSTH Street, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80301 303 .442.0267 Fax 3 03 .442.3679April 4, 20 16 Page 2 of3 Sincerely, F ORMAT IO N EN VI RO N ME N TAL, 

### LLC



# ,6;/

**~** tf.



# #~ **<------** srian Hansen M . E., P. E., P. G . Partner /Geological EngineerApril4, 2016 Page 3 of3 

## Attachment A -Flight Operations Manual - DJI Phantom 4
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 108 Received in Senate (RDS)]







105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 108


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 26, 1997

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
       Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, June 
26, 1997, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 8, 1997, 
or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassem- 
ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever 
occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the 
close of business on Thursday, June 26, 1997, Friday, June 27, 1997, 
Saturday, June 28, 1997, or Sunday, June 29, 1997, pursuant to a motion 
made by the Majority Leader, or his designee, in accordance with this 
concurrent resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on 
Monday, July 7, 1997, or such time on that day as may be specified by 
the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, 
or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 26, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.`
EXHIBIT 34.1

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Management Committee
 BMW Financial Services NA, LLC

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that BMW Financial Services NA, LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange  Commission's Regulation AB for Asset-Backed Securities, BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2014-A (except for the servicing criteria described in the following paragraph), which the Company has determined as being applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2016 and for the period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria based on our examination.

The Company has determined that the servicing criteria in Items 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x)(A)-(C), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv) are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2016 and for the period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified in the first paragraph of this report and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified in the first paragraph.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that BMW Financial Services NA, LLC complied, in all material respects, with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ CohnReznick LLP

 

Roseland, New Jersey
 March 22, 2017
Exhibit 32.1
 
 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 Amendment to the Quarterly Report of Biometrics 2000 Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph J. Turek, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting and Financial Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Joseph J. Turek
 Joseph J. Turek
 Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
 (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
 May 17, 2004
  
 20
#### C. B. G., Appellant v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellee

NO. 03-15-00801-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

January 25, 2016

Cynthia L. Sexton, Austin, TX, for Appellant.

Jannice Joseph, Assistant District Attorney, Austin, TX, for Appellee.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Bourland

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Appellant C.B.G. filed her notice of appeal on December 11, 2015. The appellate record was complete January 5, 2016, making appellant’s brief due January 25, 2016. On January 25, 2016, counsel for appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief.

Amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. *See*Tex.R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than February 16, 2016. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on January 25, 2016.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Election Assistance Commission

# AGENCY:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting agenda; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                         The U.S. Election Assistance Commission published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of March 21, 2022, regarding the scheduled meeting to vote on the Adoption of Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) Lifecycle Policy 1.0. The notice contained an incorrect time.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         Kristen Muthig, Telephone: (202) 897-9285, Email:                         *kmuthig@eac.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of March 21, 2022, in FR Doc. 2022-06025, on page 15982 in the first column, the                     **DATES**                     section should be corrected to read:                

**DATES:**                     Tuesday, April 5, 2022, 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Eastern.                

Amanda Joiner,

Acting General Counsel, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

[FR Doc. 2022-06314 Filed 3-24-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Alberto HUERTA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10242 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 9, 2018

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Jose Alberto Huerta, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Alberto Huerta on appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Huerta has filed a response requesting the voluntary dismissal of the appeal. Because he did not sign the motion, his request is DENIED. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 32(d).

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 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.

*

 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.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J OH N D E HE R R E R A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50527 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 1 0 8 5 - CBM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C ons ue l o B . M a r s ha l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t23, 2010 ** B e f o r e : L E A V Y , H A W K I N S , a n d T H O M A S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . J ohn D e H e rr e r aappe a l s pr o s e f r om the be nc h- tr i a l c onvi c t i on a nd 24- m onth uns upe rvi s e d pr oba t i ona rys e nt e nc e i m pos e d f orc om m i tt i ng the m i s de m e a norof

f e ns e s of: ( 1) c om m e m or a t i ve i ns t a l l a t i on of as truc tur e i n a f e de r a l pa rk a r e aw i thoutauthor i z a t i on; a nd ( 2) t a m pe r i ng w i th pr ope rtyi n a 

# FI LED SEP 03 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 50527 2 fe dera l park, i n v i ol at i on of 36 C . F . R . §§ 2. 62 (a ) and 2. 31 (a )( 2). D e H e rr e r aa dm i t s t o c om m i tt i ng the of f e ns e s , butc ont e nds tha tthe conv i ct i on shou l d b e s etas i de base d o n h i s def ense of neces si ty. T he di stri ctcourt c o rr e c tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt D e H e rr e r a ’s n e c e s s ity d e f e n s e . A c c o r d in g ly , th is c o n te n tio n la c k s m e r it. Se e U ni te d State s v . P e rdom oEs pana , 52 2 F . 3d 98 3, 98 7 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). AF F I RME D.
#### XUEBING LU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70832

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

Kaveh Ardalan, Law Office of Kaveh Ardalan, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner

Elizabeth Robyn Chapman, Trial Attorney, John D. Williams, Esquire, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: CANBY, TROTT,' and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Xuebing Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying her motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Sharma v. Holder,*633 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

In her opening brief, Lu does not challenge the agency’s determination that she failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lu failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear of future persecution “not objectively reasonable under the circumstances of [the] case”). Thus, Lu’s asylum claim fails.

*655Because Lu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, she did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye,*453 F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lu failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. *See Aden v. Holder,*589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).

Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lu’s motion to remand where Lu failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a strong likelihood that her marriage to a United States citizen was bona fide. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2003) (providing that an applicant “must offer evidence that is probative of the motivation for marriage, not just the bare fact of getting married.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.