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

<ARTICLE>          5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                  4242000
<SECURITIES>                                             199000
<RECEIVABLES>                                           2430000
<ALLOWANCES>                                              76000
<INVENTORY>                                            13807000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              0
<PP&E>                                                  1696000
<DEPRECIATION>                                           768000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         26354000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         0
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                             3193000
<COMMON>                                                7712000
<OTHER-SE>                                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           26354000
<SALES>                                                28681000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       30551000
<CGS>                                                  22957000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          29338000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       684000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          529000
<INCOME-TAX>                                             199000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      209000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                             209000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               .07
        

</TABLE>
#### Luz AQUINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PNC MORTGAGE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17170

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 26, 2018

Luz Aquino, Pro Se

Andrew A. Bao, Attorney, Wolfe & Wy-man, LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, Colt B. Dodrill, Attorney, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees PNC Mortgage, PNC Bank, N.A.

Laurel I. Handley, Anthony R. Sassi, Esquire, Aldridge Pite, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Clear Recon Corporation

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Luz Aquino appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), Fair Credit Reporting Act, and state law claims related to á mortgage on real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. *Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l,*854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Aquino’s FDCPA claim against PNC Bank, N.A. because Aquino failed to allege facts sufficient to show that PNC was a debt collector under the FDCPA. *See*15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(ii) (excluding from the definition of debt collector a creditor collecting debts on its behalf); *Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,*720 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff “must plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that [the defendant] is a debt collector” (citation internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Aquino’s FDCPA claim against Clear Recon Corporation because Aquino failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d-1692g. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid' dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly ■ raised and argued in -the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 12-5251.

#### Munson *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
March 23, 2015

Mr. Stephen Nally

13224 Cain Lane

Louisville, KY 40245

Dear Mr. Nally:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your January 26, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

0213), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         Statement of Computation of Shares Outstanding

                     For the three months ended For the nine months ended
                     February 28, February 29,  February 28, February 29,
                          1997         1996         1997        1996    

<S>                    <C>         <C>           <C>          <C>
Average outstanding 
  shares               3,140,739   3,140,739     3,140,739    3,020,678

Dilutive effect of
  stock options
  and warrants            19,385      18,667        26,301       18,667
 
Weighted average
  number of shares
  outstanding          3,160,124   3,159,406     3,167,040    3,039,345

</TABLE>
# C_2022311EN.01000201.xml

| 16.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/2

---

Appeal brought on 6 January 2022 by QC against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 11 November 2021 in Case T-77/21, QC v Commission

(Case C-14/22 P)

(2022/C 311/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: QC (represented by: F. Moyse, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 30 June 2022, the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---
No. 11-10949.

#### Scaccia *v.*Stamp et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### RAYMOND CERILLI *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 35025)

DiPentima, C. J., and Gruendel and Alvord, Js.

Argued March 20—

officially released April 8, 2014

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
No. 12-5320.

#### Evans *v.*Booker, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10543.

#### Botello *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-5043.

#### Lee *v.*United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10344.

#### Pina *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. After examining Plaintiff’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 8, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN VASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. CITY OF KINSLEY, KANSAS, Defendant-Appellee. No. 08-3175 (D.C. No. 5:08-CV-03130-SAC) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before O’BRIEN , McKAY , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.
Pro se Plaintiff Martin Vasquez appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We review the court’s dismissal of his complaint de novo. See Riddle v. Mondragon , 83 F.3d 1197, 1201 (10th Cir. 1996). The Supreme Court has held that “a local government may not be sued-2- under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents,” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978), but will be held liable only where “action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort,” id. at 691. Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s complaint does not claim that the alleged malicious prosecution was caused by any such official policy, nor does the complaint reasonably suggest that such a claim could be supported. Therefore, for substantially the reasons delineated by the district court, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim. We advise Plaintiff that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and we remind him that, upon incurring three strikes, he will no longer be able to proceed in forma pauperisin a civil action in federal court unless he is “under imminent danger of serious injury,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We also remind Plaintiff of his obligation to continue making partial payments until his filing fee has been paid in full. Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
No. 12-5383.

#### Butler v. Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 107 

Establishing the Congressional Gold Star Family Fellowship Program for 

the placement in offices of Members of the House of Representatives 

of children, spouses, and siblings of members of the Armed Forces 

who are hostile casualties or who have died from a training-related 

injury. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2019 

Mr. KELLY of Mississippi submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Establishing the Congressional Gold Star Family Fellowship 

Program for the placement in offices of Members of 

the House of Representatives of children, spouses, and 

siblings of members of the Armed Forces who are hostile 

casualties or who have died from a training-related injury. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

3 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SFC Sean Cooley and 

4 SPC Christopher Horton Congressional Gold Star Family 

5 Fellowship Program Act’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 107 IH 

1 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD STAR FELLOWSHIP PRO2 GRAM. 

3 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the 

4 House of Representatives the Congressional Gold Star 

5 Family Fellowship Program (hereafter in this resolution 

6 referred to as the ‘‘Program’’) under which, under the di7 rection of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House 

8 of Representatives, an eligible individual may serve a 12- 

9 month fellowship in the office of a Member of the House 

10 of Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident Com11 missioner to the Congress). 

12 (b) EXCLUSION OF APPOINTEES FOR PURPOSES OF

13 LIMIT ON NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN MEMBER OF14 FICES.—Any individual serving a fellowship under the 

15 Program in the office of a Member shall not be included 

16 in the determination of the number of employees employed 

17 by the Member under section 104(a) of the House of Rep18 resentatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections 

19 Act (2 U.S.C. 5321(a)). 

20 (c) PLACEMENT IN MEMBER OFFICES IN DISTRICT

21 OF COLUMBIA OR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF MEM22 BER.—An individual may serve a fellowship under the 

23 Program at the Member’s office in the District of Colum24 bia or the Member’s office in the congressional district the 

25 Member represents. 

26 (d) ELIGIBILITY.— 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 107 IH 

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—An individual is eligible to 

2 serve a fellowship under the Program if the indi3 vidual is the child (including a stepchild), spouse, or 

4 sibling of a member of the Armed Forces who is a 

5 hostile casualty or died from a training-related in6 jury. 

7 (2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection, the 

8 terms ‘‘hostile casualty’’ and ‘‘training-related in9 jury’’ have the meanings given those terms in sec10 tion 2402(b) of title 38, United States Code. 

11 (e) REGULATIONS.—The Program shall be carried 

12 out in accordance with regulations promulgated by the 

13 Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
# C_2022380EN.01002101.xml

| 3.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/21

---

Action brought on 8 August 2022 — Zitro International v EUIPO — e-gaming (Smiley wearing a top hat)

(Case T-491/22)

(2022/C 380/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Zitro International Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: e-gaming s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of a smiley wearing a top hat) — Application for registration No 17 884 680

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2022 in Case R 2005/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and whoever opposes the action in this case to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and whoever opposes the action in this case to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 

18 U.S.C. §1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

        Inconnection with this Interim Report on Form 10-QSB of Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned President and Chief Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
**~ISTY** 2 MOA 

### Independence Stack : <400'AGL Class G , SFC- 1 200'AGL Radio: CTAF 123 .0 

### wego Co (FZY) Radio : CTA F 123 .0

res 0
No. 11-10026.

#### Postolache v*.*Postolache.

Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12837-12838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6823]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Preservation Technology and Training Board: Meeting

Agency: National Park Service, Interior.

Action: Notice of meeting of the National Preservation Technology and 
Training Board.

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

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee

[[Page 12838]]

Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix (1988), that the National Preservation 
Technology and Training Board will meet on April 21, 22 and 23, 1997, 
in Los Angeles, California.
    The Board was established by Congress to provide leadership, policy 
advice, and professional oversight to the National Center for 
Preservation Technology and Training, as required under the National 
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470).
    The Board will meet at the Getty Conservation Institute which is 
located at 1200 Getty Center Drive in Los Angeles, California. Matters 
to be discussed will include, staff program updates and the 
establishment of non-Federal support for the Center's programs.
    Monday, April 21 the meeting will start at 9:00 am and end at 5:00 
pm. On Tuesday, April 22, the meeting will be begin at 8:30 am and end 
at 4:30 pm and Wednesday, April 23, the meeting will begin at 8:30 am 
and end at noon. Meetings will be open to the public. However, 
facilities and space for accommodating members of the public are 
limited and persons will accommodated on a first-come, first-served 
basis. Any member of the public may file a written statement concerning 
the matters to be discussed by the National Preservation Technology and 
Training Board, with the National Park Service, Heritage Preservation 
Services, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127, ATTN: Carol Gould. 
If you plan to attend the meeting you must notify Carol Gould at 
telephone (202) 343-9585 by Thursday, April 17, 1997, so that 
arrangements can be made for you to gain access to the Getty 
Conservation Institute facility.
    Draft summary minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
inspection about eight weeks after the meeting at Heritage Preservation 
Services Office, Suite 200, 800 North Capitol Street, Washington, DC.

    Dated: 12 March 1997.
E. Blaine Cliver,
Chief, HABS/HAER, Designated Federal Official, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 97-6823 Filed 3-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Order entered December 11, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01291-CV

IN RE JANECIA WATT, Relator

On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JC-19-00707

ORDER

Before the Court is relator’s October 23, 2019 petition for writ of mandamus. We request 

that the real party in interest and respondent file their responses, if any, to the petition for writ of 

mandamus by December 23, 2019.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
/**
* DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE.
* See the following change record for more information,
* https://www.drupal.org/node/2815083
* @preserve
**/
if (typeof Object.assign !== 'function') {
  Object.defineProperty(Object, 'assign', {
    value: function assign(target, varArgs) {
      'use strict';

      if (target === null || target === undefined) {
        throw new TypeError('Cannot convert undefined or null to object');
      }
      var to = Object(target);
      for (var index = 1; index < arguments.length; index++) {
        var nextSource = arguments[index];
        if (nextSource !== null && nextSource !== undefined) {
          for (var nextKey in nextSource) {
            if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(nextSource, nextKey)) {
              to[nextKey] = nextSource[nextKey];
            }
          }
        }
      }
      return to;
    },
    writable: true,
    configurable: true
  });
}
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 14120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Corps of Engineers


Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 
for the Upper North Branch Potomac River Environmental Restoration 
Feasibility Study, Maryland and West Virginia

AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: In the previous Federal Register notice (Vol. 62, No. 26, 
pages 5803-5804) Friday, February 7, 1997, make the following 
corrections:
    On page 5803, column two, tenth line of the Summary paragraph, the 
words ``Natural Resources'' pertaining to the Maryland Department, are 
changed to read ``the Environment.'' The site was erroneously listed as 
``Natural Resources.''
    On page 5803, column 3, paragraph 6, second and third line, the 
words ``Natural Resources'' pertaining to the Maryland Department, are 
changed to read ``the Environment.'' The site was erroneously listed as 
``Natural Resources.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information, please refer to the previous point of contact 
official in the original notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-7430 Filed 3-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-41-M