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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,554
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,839
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,500
<INVENTORY>                                      1,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,369
<PP&E>                                         153,101
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,821
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 540,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,851,478
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,843
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,325,159)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   540,162
<SALES>                                        267,487
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               267,487
<CGS>                                           16,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  465,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (37,099)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                70,808
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (280,182)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (280,182)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (280,182)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16463]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Reports and Guidance Documents; Air Carriers; Cessation of 
Operations

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department's Office of Aviation Analysis issues this 
notice to provide guidance regarding the effect that a cessation of 
operations pursuant to a voluntary agreement with the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) has upon an air carrier's economic authority 
issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41102 or 41738. The notice advises U.S. 
certificated and commuter air carriers that the Department considers 
the cessation of operations pursuant to such a voluntary agreement with 
the FAA to be a cessation of operations within the meaning of 14 CFR 
204.7. Therefore, the carrier may not hold out, sell, wet lease, 
provide or obtain subservice, or conduct any other direct air 
transportation operations until it has again been found fit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William J. Wagner, Senior Trial 
Attorney, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Tel. No. (202) 366-9357.
John V. Coleman,
Director, Office of Aviation Analysis.
[FR Doc. 98-16463 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
# C_2016305EN.01005301.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/53

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-533/13) (1)

1

(2016/C 305/71)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.

1

---
### Certification Statement

1, Jerry Reid, Assistant Attorney General, hereby certify that the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) demonstrations contained in the attached State Implementation (SIP) submittals have been adopted in accordance with all relevant requirements of the Maine Administrative Procedures Act and were lawfully adopted by the Board of Environmental Protection on April 3, 2008. 

# y111l6S' I `. Jerry Reid, A

.A.G . Date
#### People v Hagaman

3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1183 (Warren)

denied 8/5/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)
No. 09-11408.

#### Hubbard Bell, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 878, 131 S. Ct. 193,

178 L. Ed. 2d 116,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6943.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 610.
COURT OFCWMIWftl APPEALS

APR3O201!

* t * _^_ Ab@IAcosta,Cterk

Mo-hc&: &J£_ £e_fo&ut £o&& 4JLe~ te>e &ai<£ ^ie^tf<i^-^V'/e^_

J kftye.—^efi-i^LedL t^°^'K£J^ ^-JsgA wic^ app&tUA d&pO) ©£ 4&g- jUofrtC^^toft*? Ji<2=S loee/vJ MmL&Jl_

pa \et-Z
£XppegJ(laA>i yroA^-fr i&c^l 4Ae_ "TfcA-AS &>&*.+ o£

-jUo.i*L.t)eC—0--£, MomJO£e£> ffleso+iex)&JL M) objCJ^z. /o file USIU +

JA^_^_^_i *w.eJU* USA.AWeJL^

&MWLg Lee. ~5acV-'s>o<o * l$&2Z6<p

Lopez. *>.T<vr£ ^aCI

£^lA)bur^--,Jlejyt3 n&SH 2-

P& AoP 4_
# C_2016038EN.01001202.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/12

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Tamoil Italia SpA v Ministero dell'Ambiente e delle Tutela del Territorio e del Mare

(Case C-156/14) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 191(2) TFEU - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability - National legislation under which no provision is made for the administrative authorities to require owners of polluted land who have not contributed to that pollution to carry out preventive and remedial measures, and the sole obligation imposed concerns the reimbursement of the measures undertaken by those authorities - Whether compatible with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority)

(2016/C 038/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tamoil Italia SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministero dell'Ambiente e delle Tutela del Territorio e del Mare

Defendant:

Intervening party: Provincia di Venezia, Comune di Venezia, Regione Veneto

Intervening party:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, where it is impossible to identify the polluter of a plot of land or to have that person adopt remedial measures, does not permit the competent authority to require the owner of the land (who is not responsible for the pollution) to adopt preventive and remedial measures, that person being required merely to reimburse the costs relating to the measures undertaken by the competent authority within the limit of the market value of the site, determined after those measures have been carried out.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

1

---
# C_2013325EN.01004901.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/49

---

Action brought on 13 September 2013 — Schmidt Spiele v OHIM (Representation of a games board)

(Case T-493/13)

2013/C 325/78

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Schmidt Spiele GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by T. Sommer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2013 in Case R 1768/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2013 in Case R 1768/2012-1;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs;

| — | Set a date for the oral procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set a date for the oral procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the representation of a games board for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 10 592 095

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,614,290
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         157,574
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,040,816
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 28,972,207
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       6,954,070
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         6,976,725
<LOANS>                                     45,838,975
<ALLOWANCE>                                    391,332
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              97,332,521
<DEPOSITS>                                  75,282,243
<SHORT-TERM>                                 4,200,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            710,650
<LONG-TERM>                                  9,200,000
<COMMON>                                     1,290,760
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,648,868
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              97,332,521
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,952,183
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,847,275
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                99,156
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,898,614
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,220,315
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,636,032
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,262,582
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              27,360
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,198,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                410,366
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     147,732
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   262,634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.89
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.11
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,110,973
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,110,973
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               630,423
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  241,229
<RECOVERIES>                                    38,596
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              391,332
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           391,332
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35606-35607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17310]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Meeting of the National Maritime Heritage Grants 
Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix (1988), that the National 
Maritime Heritage Grants Advisory Committee will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m. on the following dates and at the following location.

DATES: July 22-24, 1998.

LOCATION: Hall of States, 444 North Capitol Street, N.W, Washington, 
D.C. 20001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Foster, National Maritime 
Initiative (2280), National Park Service, 1849 C Street N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20240. Phone: (202) 343-5969, Fax: (202) 343-1244.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 103-451 (16 U.S.C. 5401), 
established the National Maritime Heritage Grants Advisory Committee to 
advise the Secretary of the Interior on matters pertaining to the 
National Maritime Heritage Grants Program and the National Maritime 
Heritage Policy.
    The purpose of this meeting is to review grant proposals and make 
funding recommendations to the Secretary and to discuss strategies for 
achieving the National Maritime Heritage Policy. The Committee will 
address general business, discuss grant

[[Page 35607]]

proposals, and assess the current status of maritime heritage at the 
national level and recommend appropriate changes, actions, and 
priorities.
    Part of the meeting may be closed to the public. Pursuant to 16 
U.S.C. 5404(j) the Committee has the authority to close a Committee 
meeting by majority vote. A vote will be taken regarding whether to 
close the meeting, and the meeting may be closed thereafter. Any member 
of the public may file, for consideration by the Committee, a written 
statement concerning matters to be discussed. Statements should be 
submitted to Kevin Foster, Chief, National Maritime Initiative (2280), 
National Park Service, 1849 C Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.
Barry Mackintosh,
Acting Chief Historian.
[FR Doc. 98-17310 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
No. 10-5823.

#### Alberta Hubbard, Petitioner v. Detroit Public Schools.

562 U.S. 1172, 131 S. Ct. 986,

178 L. Ed. 2d 814,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 303.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 968, 131 S. Ct. 470, 178 L. Ed. 2d 299, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8120.
# C_2013226EN.01002102.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/21

---

Action brought on 28 May 2013 — Nordex Holding/OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna)

(Case T-302/13)

(2013/C 226/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nordex Holding A/S (Dronninglund, Denmark) (represented by: M. Kleis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the First Board of Appeal’s decision of 21 March 2013 in Case R 2608/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the First Board of Appeal’s decision of 21 March 2013 in Case R 2608/2011-1;

| — | Annul the Cancellation Division’s decision of 21 October 2011 No 4891 C, which preceded the adoption of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Cancellation Division’s decision of 21 October 2011 No 4891 C, which preceded the adoption of the contested decision;

| — | Order the Office to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘Taverna’– Community trade mark registration No 5 466 909

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark partially invalid

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) in conjunction with 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               9
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,107
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         28
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,151
<PP&E>                                           1,537
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              419
<BONDS>                                            980
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        350
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,786
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   475
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    150
<INCOME-TAX>                                        58
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 92
<DISCONTINUED>                                     158
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       250
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR
ACCOMPANYING NOTES THERETO.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-05-0393-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B DECEMBER 21 , 2006

______________________________ BARBARA STONE, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 140 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2004-407,187; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL , PRESIDING

_______________________________

DISSENT

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. I respectfully

dissent from the maj ority’s opinion to the extent it holds that appellant’s consent was voluntary and sufficiently attenuated f rom the illegal e ntry a nd detention. Simply put, there is no mater ial distincti on between the facts here and those in Grimal do v. State , No. 07-0 4-02 45-C R, 20 06 T ex. App. LEXIS 1824 (Tex . App.–Amarill o March 8, 2006, no pet. h.); thus, the decis ion in Grimal do controls theoutcome at bar. The decision to enter without a valid warrant was made once it was determined that the substance obtained from the housewas contr aband. That is, the officer s “decided to2

go ahea d and make entr y into the a part men t, se cure the p erso ns in side , eit her u ntil [the y] could obtain a search warrant or [they] could obtain consent to search from w hoever was in charge of the residence.” So, the p urpose of the of ficers was cle ar when they

undertook to unlawfully

enter the home with g uns drawn. They wer e intent on conduc

ting a search, one way or the other. Addi tion ally, it is difficult to deny that police obse rvation of the contraband arose from the unlawful ent ry into and sweep of the location. Again, no w arrant authori zed the entryor a search, the contraband the y sought was not within plain view , and mere minutes lapsed from the deci sion to undertake forced entry to the discovery of the coc aine. Fina lly, while i t may be th at ap pellant wa s told of her ri ght to refuse consent, one
can only w

onder if her res ponse evince d a legiti mate choice. By that time, the officers had already entered the home illegally with guns drawn, and seized all present w ithout legal justification. Nothing of record sug gests that t he officers woul d have left the pr emises or momentarily released thei r detainees had consentbeen denied. The co ntrary would seem true given t he general i ntent to search one way or ano ther. Nor ca n I discount the undeniable affect on one ’s ability to think clearly of the unlawful pr

esence of

armed police officers roaming throughout the home. As previous ly stated, the circumstances here are materially indisting uishable from those in Grimal

do . So, I conclude that appellant ’s motion to suppress should have been granted. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Publish.