alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EDA Disclaimer & Instructions

 EDA DISCLAIMER:  This template is provided at the request of Applicants as an optional tool to clarify the required information for your application in accordance with the required, standard OMB approved forms (SF-424, SF-424A and Budget Narrative). It in no way prevents you from supplying this information in an alternate format.Project Costs must be substantiated to the point that the award official can determine whether proposed costs appear reasonable, allocable, and necessary to meet the project's Scope of Work, as well as whether those costs meet any other specific requirements that may apply. This optional workbook can help your organization meet those requirements. 

 Instructions:  This is an optional template. Please fill out the Staffing Plan, Budget Narrative, and Timeline. The Budget Overview tab will autopopulate based on the inputs from the other tabs.

# Staffing Plan

Total Personnel Costs should be calculated to account for all personnel costs charged to the grant and should include both federal resources and matching share, if any.Further, fringe costs should be calculated and documented based on personnel projections . Supporting documents and policies should be provided upon request. More information on fringe benefits can be found in 2 CFR 200.431

Instructions: Staffing plan should include a detailed breakdown of time allotted to the project, in addition to their specific role/responsbilities on this project. Staffing for subawardees or contractors should NOT be included here and should be included in the contractual line item on the following tabs.

# Budget Narrative

Insert values for all cost categories. This sheet will autopopulate the overall totals on the Budget Overview tab.

# Budget Overview

Cells on this page are linked to the individual categories which are required for the SF-424, SF-424A and Budget Narrative. 

# Timeline

Instructions:1. Leave the months as numeric values - the Project Scope of Work should remain in general terms for the period of performance. 2. The Tasks and Deliverables included here are examples. They should be updated to include the project specific tasks and deliverables for which you are applying for federal funds and should match your scope of work.
# C_2023024EN.01002801.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara (Romania) lodged on 11 October 2022 — SC Assofrutti Rom SRL v Agenţia pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale and Centrul Regional pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale 5 Vest Timişoara

(Case C-635/22)

(2023/C 24/36)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timişoara

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant and applicant at first instance: SC Assofrutti Rom SRL

Respondents and defendants at first instance: Agenţia pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale and Centrul Regional pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale 5 Vest Timişoara

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the provisions of Article 17 of Council Directive 2008/90/EC of 29 September 2008 on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production (1) be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from requiring the public procurement procedure to be conducted prior to the marketing of [Conformitas Agraria Communitatis (CAC)] material? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the provisions of Article 17 of Council Directive 2008/90/EC of 29 September 2008 on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production (1) be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from requiring the public procurement procedure to be conducted prior to the marketing of [Conformitas Agraria Communitatis (CAC)] material?

| 2. | In a situation such as that in the present case, can Article 4(10) of Regulation No 1303/2013, (2) read in conjunction with Article 39(1)(a) and (b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the requirement for the public procurement procedure to be conducted as provided for in [Romania’s National Rural Development Programme] 2014-2020 (fifth version)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In a situation such as that in the present case, can Article 4(10) of Regulation No 1303/2013, (2) read in conjunction with Article 39(1)(a) and (b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the requirement for the public procurement procedure to be conducted as provided for in [Romania’s National Rural Development Programme] 2014-2020 (fifth version)?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 267, p. 8.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320).

---
2018 WY 13

#### Rikki Lea DIETRICH, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-17-0269

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

February 7, 2018

Order Affirming the District Court’s “Revocation of Probation Sentencing Order”

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon its. own motion following notification that Appellant did not file a *pro se*brief within the time allotted by this Court. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s August 14, 2017, “Revocation of Probation Sentencing Order,” In that order, the district court revoked Appellant’s probation following Appellant’s admission to three probation violations. The district court imposed a 2 to 5-year sentence on the underlying charge of endangering children, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-405.

[¶2] On November 29, 2017, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel e-filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This Court subsequently ordered that, on or before January 16, 2018, Appellant would be permitted to file a *pro se*brief specifying the issues she would like the Court to consider. This Court also provided notice that, after the time for filing a *pro se*brief expired, this Court would “make its" rulihg on counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision on this appeal.” Appellant did not file a *pro se*brief or any other pleading in the time allotted.

[¶3] Now, following á careful review of the record and the *“Anders*brief’ submitted by appellate counsel, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted and the district court’s August 14, 2017, “Revocation of Probation Sentencing Order” should be affirmed. It is,' therefore,

:i [¶4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel for Appellant, Rikki Lea Dietrich, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for Appellant; and it is further

[¶5] ORDERED that the district, court’s August 14, 2017, “Revocation of Probation Sentencing Order” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

[¶6] DATED this 7th day of February, 2018.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ E. James Burke Chief Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS FOR THE THREE
MONTHS AND SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                         0000818073
<NAME>                                        CUSA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. DOLLARS
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         1,163,102
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,366,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                   572,569
<INVENTORY>                                    252,488
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6,677,419
<PP&E>                                         6,322,536
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,764,761
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,528,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          18,219,035
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1000
<COMMON>                                       8,918
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,289,518)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (7,279,600)
<SALES>                                        7,577,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,577,392
<CGS>                                          4,051,374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,323,075
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,888
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             137,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                122,639
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            122,639
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (78,455)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   44,184
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .01
        


</TABLE>
United States Department of State

 Bureau of Oceans and International 

 Environmental and Scientific Affairs

 Washington, D.C. 20520

January 22, 2014

Ms. Tina Birmpili

Executive Secretary

Ozone Secretariat

United Nations Environment Programme

United Nations Avenue

P.O. Box 30552

Nairobi, Kenya

Dear Ms. Birmpili:

Consistent with provisions of the Montreal Protocol and of Decision IX/6 of the Parties, the United States 

submits the enclosed nomination for a methyl bromide critical use exemption (CUE) in 2016. This nomination is 

intended for consideration by the Parties to the Protocol at their Twenty Sixth meeting in 2014. The enclosed document 

includes separate chapters that describe each of the two sectors for which the United States is making a nomination: 

California strawberries and dry cured pork products. We hope that this organization provides the information in the 

most accessible manner to facilitate the efforts of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) during 

their review.

We also wish to ensure MBTOC is aware that tolerances related to sulfuryl fluoride are under consideration in 

the United States, and we are keeping that under close review as that process moves forward. Consistent with past 

practice, the U.S. critical use nomination is based on available alternatives that are viable at the time of the nomination. 

We would revisit the U.S. Government’s decision not to nominate certain sectors should the registration status of 

sulfuryl fluoride in the United States change significantly. 

We appreciate your consideration of this application, and look forward to working with you and others to 

answer any questions that may arise during the review process. Best regards.

Sincerely,

John Thompson

Deputy Director

Office of Environmental Policy
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Kubosh Bail Bonding, Kubosh Law Office, Paul Kubosh 

and Felix Michael Kubosh, Relators

Appellate case numbers: 01-16-00417-CV, 01-16-00418-CV, and 01-16-00419-CV

Trial court case numbers: 2013-50819, 2015-39797, and 2015-39798

Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County

On May 24, 2016, the relators, Kubosh Bail Bonding, Kubosh Law Office, Paul 

Kubosh and Felix Michael Kubosh, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to 

vacate the respondent trial judge’s March 31, 2016 order denying relators’ motion to 

compel release of emails and for entry of an order granting that motion in the three 

underlying consolidated trial court cases. On May 26, 2016, this Court granted the 

relators’ motion to stay all the underlying proceedings and requested a response.

On June 2, 2016, the relators filed this “Motion for Order for Transfer of In

Camera Documents to Court of Appeals” seeking to have the trial court make a copy of 

the emails in question and to have them transferred to the Clerk of this Court for this 

Court’s disposition of the petition. With their petition, relators had filed six volumes of a 

sworn record in this Court, including a blank exhibit Tab 25 in Volume 5 that referred to 

the emails in question that were filed in camera with the trial court. Relators indicated

that these emails were to be delivered under seal by the trial court clerk to this Court.

Accordingly, we grant the relators’ motion to transfer the in camera documents to 

this Court. We ORDER the respondent, the Honorable Michael Gomez, presiding judge 

of the 129th District Court of Harris County, to direct the district clerk to make a copy of 

the emails submitted in camera with the trial court, Bates-labeled CARTER 001352-

001358, onto a USB flash drive. We further ORDER the respondent to direct the district 

clerk to have this USB flash drive hand-delivered, via a courier charged to relators, to the 

Clerk of this Court in a sealed envelope marked, “Sworn Record Tab 25—

CONFIDENTIAL,” with the above appellate cause numbers and style, within 10 days of 

this order. Cf. TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.4(a).
We sua sponte lift the stay imposed on May 26, 2016, in the three underlying trial 

court cause numbers above for the limited purpose of ordering the respondent to direct 

the district clerk to comply with this Order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually 

Date: June 7, 2016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0017

______________________________________ JAY WILSON PRESTON, COMMUNITYTEL, INC., RONAN TELEPHONE, INC., WESTERN MONTANA COMMUNITYTEL, INC., d/b/a ACCESS MONTANA , Defendants /Appellants /Cross - Appellees v. FRED WEBER and MONTANASKY NETWORKS, INC., Plaintiffs/Appellees /Cross - Appellants

______________________________________

**ORDER**

______________________________________ Before this Court is the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice, and the Court having read and reviewed the Stipulation and good cause appearing: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the above - captioned case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Electronically signed and dated below.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 14 2022

03/14/2022
Case Number: DA 22-0017
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 24, 2016

a0516

Order 

Clerk

May 24, 2016

151897 & (15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151897

COA: 326896

Wayne CC: 13-002760-FC

CHARLES EARL VARNADO, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

reconsideration of the defendant’s April 14, 2015 delayed application for leave to appeal 

under the standard applicable to direct appeals. The defendant’s former appellate 

attorney failed to timely file in the trial court a motion to withdraw as counsel, and failed 

to file in the Court of Appeals, on direct review, a delayed application for leave to appeal 

within the deadlines set forth in MCR 7.205(G)(3). Accordingly, the defendant was 

deprived of his direct appeal as a result of constitutionally ineffective assistance of 

counsel. See Roe v Flores-Ortega, 528 US 470, 477; 120 S Ct 1209; 145 L Ed 2d 985 

(2000); Peguero v United States, 526 US 23, 28; 119 S Ct 961; 143 L Ed 2d 18 (1999). 

The motion to remand to the trial court is DENIED.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NORTHLAND CRANBERRIES, INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE 3 MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                             205
<SECURITIES>                                     1,260
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,424
<PP&E>                                         152,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,541
<BONDS>                                         71,682
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           137
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,602
<SALES>                                         10,098
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,920
<CGS>                                            4,675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 795
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,485
<INCOME-TAX>                                       983
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,502
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,502
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6662

MARCUS ALLEN MCFADDEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CO S. BARTON; CO D. HOFFMAN; CO S. BOGGS , Defendants

- Appellees ,

v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL , Party

- in

- Interest

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen L. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv
- 02582

- ELH )

Submitted : October 12, 2018 Decided: October 18, 2018

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Marcus Allen McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marcus Allen McFadden appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in hi s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ; Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)

. In his brief, McFadden argues only that the district court erred in denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find
no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny counsel. See Miller v.
Simmons , 814 F.2d 962 , 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (standard of review); Whisenant v. Yuam , 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (requiring exceptional circumstances to support appointment of counsel in civil cases), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa , 490 U.S. 296 (1989). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny as moot McFadden’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### COM. v. NEAL, A.

2462 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/11/2017

CP-45-CR-0000225-2015

(Monroe)

Affirmed/Vacated
Exhibit 32.1

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


      Pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350, the undersigned  officer
of  Harold's Stores, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby  certifies
that  the  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q  for  the
quarter  ended April 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully  complies
with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d),   as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and  that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents,  in
all  material respects, the financial condition and  results
of operations of the Company.

Date:  June 14, 2005          /s/ Hugh W. Mullins
                              Hugh W. Mullins
                              President and Chief
                              Executive Officer