alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table. Number of Diagnostic Tests for FMD and VS Serology 2008 

Test First Semester Second Semester

VIAA 910 252

3ABC ELISA 30,265 15,214

EITB 1,180 830

Structural ELISA 28,280 5,191

Typing ELISA 50 41

Total 60,685 21,528

Table Livestock Producers, Establishments, and Bovine and Sheep Populations in 

the Patagonia Region in 2009 

Province Total 

Establishments

Total 

Producers

Establishments 

with Bovines

Bovine

Population

Establishments 

with Sheep

Sheep

Population

Chubut 4,593 5,178 2.214 252,582 3,605 4,786,274

Santa 

Cruz

773 807 230 58,968 595 3,324,012

Tierra del 

Fuego

81 90 72 32,770 52 572,464

TOTAL 5,447 6,075 2,516 344,320 4,252 8,628,750

Table 5. Pig and Goat Livestock and Establishments in the Patagonia Region in 

2009 

Province Establishments 

with Pigs

Pig Population Establishments 

with Goats

Goat Population

Chubut 256 8,890 953 144,681

Santa Cruz 47 3,101 10 1,296

Tierra del 

Fuego

8 630 0 0

TOTAL 311 12,621 963 145,977
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6976]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 39

RIN 3038-AC98

Risk Management Requirements for Derivatives Clearing 
Organizations; Correction

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects incorrect text published in the Federal 
Register of January 20, 2011, regarding Risk Management Requirements 
for Derivatives Clearing Organizations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phyllis Dietz, 202-418-5449.

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2011-690, in the issue of Thursday, 
January 20, 2011, on page 3726, in the first column, the text of 
proposed Sec.  39.19(c)(1)(iv), which reads ``End-of-day positions for 
each clearing member, by customer origin and house origin'' should 
read, ``End-of-day positions for each clearing member, by customer 
origin and house origin; and for customer origin, separately, the gross 
positions of each beneficial owner.''

    Dated: March 18, 2011.
David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-6976 Filed 3-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
No. 10-5037.

#### Wilkens Philius, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 900, 131 S. Ct. 231,

178 L. Ed. 2d 154,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6032.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 09-10684.

#### Henry Talley, Petitioner v. Burl Cain, Warden.

562 U.S. 849, 131 S. Ct. 98,

178 L. Ed. 2d 62,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5871.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 10-84.

#### Terri Crandall, et al., Petitioners v. City and County of Denver, Colorado, dba Denver International Airport.

562 U.S. 893, 131 S. Ct. 287,

178 L. Ed. 2d 141,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6213.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 594 F.3d 1231.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21D0250. DONALD E. PATTERSON v. TAMMIE E. PATTERSON.

On March 12, 2021, Donald E. Patterson (the “Husband”) filed this application

for discretionary appeal, seeking review of the trial court’s award of alimony to his

former wife, Tammie E. Patterson (the “Wife”). Upon consideration, the application

is hereby DENIED.

The Wife’s “Motion to Allow Filing of Out-of-Time Response” is DENIED as

moot.

In addition, the Wife’s “Motion for Attorney’s Fees,” which was incorporated

into her filed Response, is DENIED. See Court of AppealsRule 41 (b) (providing that

“[n]o motions . . . shall be filed in the body of briefs, applications, or responses to

applications”); Harden v. Young, 268 Ga. App. 619, 620 (606 SE2d 6) (2004)

(denying consideration of motion seeking frivolous appeal sanctions because it was

improperly filed in violation of Rule 41 (b)). 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

March 31, 2021

03/31/2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MONARCH
CEMENT COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED SEPTERMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         3492644
<SECURITIES>                                  18027377
<RECEIVABLES>                                 13264034
<ALLOWANCES>                                    523000
<INVENTORY>                                   10788886
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              45786423
<PP&E>                                        99008543
<DEPRECIATION>                                73861426
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                76379278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7842213
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      10539286
<OTHER-SE>                                    45955648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  76379278
<SALES>                                       68845578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              68845578
<CGS>                                         52824148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 52824148
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               12213946
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4500000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            7713946
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   7713946
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.83
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wntteb ~tate~ qcourt of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI Qttrcutt

ASIA PACIFIC MICROSYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee,

AND

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND HEWLETTPACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.,

Intervenors.

2012-1225

On appeal from the United States International Trade

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-723.

ORDER

Upon consideration ofAsia Pacific Microsystems, Inc.'s

filing of its corrected brief,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The International Trade Commission, HewlettPackard Company and Hewlett-Packard Development
ASIA PACIFIC v. ITC 2

Company, L.P.'s briefs are due 40 days from the date of

this order.

FOR THE COURT

DEC 06 2012

Date

cc: Steven D. Ling, Esq.

Panyin A. Hughes, Esq.

Ahmed J. Davis, Esq.

s26

lsI Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

tillEO

u.s. COURt OF APPEAlS FOR

THE FEDER!.', "'t'.CUIT

DEC 06 ZU12

JAN HORBAlY

CLERK
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE QUARTER AND NINE-MONTH 
PERIODS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE 
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                          21,014
<SECURITIES>                                 2,989,504
<RECEIVABLES>                                  862,521
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,879,810
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,879,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,511,417
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,368,396
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,879,813
<SALES>                                      4,650,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,679,754
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               244,761
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,434,993
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,434,993
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,434,993
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.338
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.338
        

</TABLE>
#### M. A. Quina, *Appellant,*vs. M. A. Touart and J. Montrose Edrehi, *Appellees.*

144 So. 306.

Division A.

Decision filed November 7, 1932.

*189
      *Jerry J. Sullivan*and *Harvey E. Page,*for Appellant;

*Reese & Reese*and *J. Montrose Edrehi,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the Decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said Decree; it is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said Decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Bufoed, C.J. and Ellis and Beown, J.J., concur.
No. 126,

Original.

#### State of Kansas, Plaintiff v. State of Nebraska and State of Colorado.

562 U.S. 820, 131 S. Ct. 378,

178 L. Ed. 2d 14,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6584.

October 4, 2010.

The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
*December 15, 2017*

2017-Ohio-9043.]

2017-1410.

#### State ex rel Keenon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus. This court, sua sponte, reconsiders its order of November 6, 2017, and denies the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.

O’Donnell and Kennedy, JJ., dissent.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

October 13, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 127967 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 127967 COA: 252926 Wayne CC: 01-007841-01 THOMAS R. BRUNAS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would remand this case to the Wa yne Circuit Court for resentencing pursuant to People v Babcock , 469 Mich 247 (2003), and People v Daniel , 462 Mich 1, 7

- 8 (2000), and would direct that this case be reassigned to another judge for resentencing.

p1006 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 13, 2005

Clerk
#### Ousman Savane, Respondent, v District Attorney of New York County et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[50 NYS3d 71]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered November 17, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of the District Attorney defendants to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff’s causes of action against defendant assistant district attorney, including for false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process, denial of due process, conspiracy and unreasonably prolonged detention, whether brought under state law and/or under 42 USC § 1983, should have been dismissed absent allegations that would overcome the assistant district attorney’s entitlement to absolute immunity in performing what was her official duties as a prosecutor *(see Arzeno v Mack,*39 AD3d 341, 342 [1st Dept 2007]; *Shmueli v City of New York,*424 F3d 231 [2d Cir 2005]).

Additionally, the felony complaint submitted by plaintiff in opposition to the motion, together with the pleadings and acknowledgment of an indictment, established that there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff *(see Brown v City of New York,*289 AD2d 95 [1st Dept 2001]), and there was no allegation to indicate the assistant district attorney’s involvement with the case until some time after plaintiff was formally charged. Under such circumstances, probable cause afforded a complete defense to plaintiff’s claims against the assistant *592district attorney for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution brought under state law, as well as the related claims brought under 42 USC § 1983*(see Hernandez v City of New York,*100 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2012], *lv dismissed*21 NY3d 1037 [2013]). Plaintiff further failed to make out a prima facie case of malicious prosecution by failing to overcome the presumption of probable cause that attached upon his indictment *(see Pang Hung Leung v City of New York,*216 AD2d 10 [1st Dept 1995]).

Defendant District Attorney was entitled to absolute immunity as a defense to plaintiffs claims under 42 USC § 1983 alleging his liability as a policy maker, and in his management capacity in the District Attorney’s Office *(see Van de Kamp v Goldstein, 555*US 335 [2009]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

AMICAS, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference to the Registration
Statements of AMICAS, Inc., formerly known as VitalWorks Inc. and InfoCure
Corporation (the "Company"), on Forms S-3, numbers 333-45480, 333-40704,
333-37890, 333-34490, 333-88589, 333-87795, 333-73097 and 333-71109 and Forms
S-8, numbers 333-96665, 333-84468, 333-72890, 333-56556, 333-40730, 333-40488,
333-39792 and 333-74773 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
respectively, of our reports dated March 17, 2005 on the consolidated financial
statements, effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial
reporting, and schedule of the Company appearing in the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
New York, New York

March 17, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Bruno, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 648]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated April 15, 2015 *(People v Bruno,*127 AD3d 986 [2015]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 29, 2008.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
No. 09-11289.

#### Frederick W. Cummings-El, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 872, 131 S. Ct. 173,

178 L. Ed. 2d 103,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6423.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 588 F.3d 1331.
No. 09-11153.

#### Jedene Randolph Rooks, aka Jedene Randy Rooks, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 864, 131 S. Ct. 148,

178 L. Ed. 2d 89,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6539.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 596 F.3d 204.
# Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Joaquin hosts F-35 Program Senior Leadership

/ Published July 14, 2021
TRACY, Calif., 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Joaquin, located in Tracy, California, hosted senior leaders from the F-35 Joint Program Office, Lockheed Martin, U.S. Transportation Command, Accenture and DLA Distribution July 7.

“The team here is honored and humbled to take on this critical mission in support of this important program,” commented DDJC Commander Marine Col. Tiffany Harris. “We have a standard of excellence at DDJC and we’re looking forward to bringing that to the F-35 program.”

In addition to receiving the command overview, the team gathered and had in-depth discussion into the F-35 mission at San Joaquin. Following the briefs and discussions, the team toured the F-35 mission area in Warehouse 59 and took the opportunity to view the hazardous and vault areas.

                Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Joaquin, California, Special Commodities Division F-35 Branch Chief Natalie Lee-Haynes is showing Shawn Anderson of Lockheed Martin a piece of F-35 materiel. (Photo by Annette Silva, DLA Distribution San Joaquin, California)                            Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Joaquin hosts F-35 Program Senior Leadership                            Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Joaquin, California, Special Commodities Division F-35 Branch Chief Natalie Lee-Haynes is showing Shawn Anderson of Lockheed Martin a piece of F-35 materiel. (Photo by Annette Silva, DLA Distribution San Joaquin, California)            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Annette SilvaVIRIN: 210707-D-LB125-1011

DDJC was selected as a wholesale air vehicle storage and distribution location for the F-35 Lightning II aircraft. DLA Distribution has a proven track record as the defense department’s storage and distribution provider and San Joaquin will continue to excel in this no-fail mission.

In January 2019, DLA Distribution was named the primary support provider for North American warehousing, and, in conjunction with TRANSCOM, the global distribution provider. The PSP designations provide opportunities for the JPO to leverage a wide range of capabilities DLA offers in the execution of this critical global program, spanning multiple international partners, customers and locations.

The F-35 mission team at San Joaquin is headed by program manager Cynthia Louie and a blended workforce of federal and contracted employees. The team is responsible for receiving, storing and shipping F-35 materiel to customers in North America.
#### Com. v. Mason 22

03/29/2016

1 EAL (2016)

22

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 94
<PAGE>
    
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1




                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-28835, 333-28853, 333-29061 and 333-40139) of 
Wesley Jessen VisionCare, Inc. of our report dated February 23, 1999 appearing 
in this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedules, 
which appears in this Form 10-K.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 30, 1999
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1561]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 1998 / 
Notices

[[Page 3307]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Secretary


Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture Meeting

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary.

ACTION: Notice of establishment and meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has established the 
Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture. In accordance with 
Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is 
hereby given of the first meeting of the Commission on 21st Century 
Production Agriculture. The purpose of this meeting is to consider 
organizational matters, operational procedures, and personnel matters. 
This meeting will be open to the public (limited only by space 
available) except when in executive session to consider personnel 
matters.

PLACE, DATE, AND TIME OF MEETING: The meeting will be held in Room 221-
A, Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250, from 9:00 am-5 
pm on February 2, 1998, and 9:00 am-noon on February 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keith J. Collins (202-720-5955), Chief Economist, Room 112-A, Jamie L. 
Whitten Federal Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20250-3810.

    Dated: January 16, 1998.
Keith J. Collins,
Chief Economist.
[FR Doc. 98-1561 Filed 1-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-01-M
#### Davis, In re Estate of; Treadway, In re 33

04/12/2016

991 MAL (2015)

33

. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 68