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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          33,541
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,339
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,797
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     71,570
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,635
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,595
<LOANS>                                        511,822
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 681,345
<DEPOSITS>                                     554,588
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,813
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,556
<LONG-TERM>                                     60,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 681,345
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 21,745
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,634
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   387
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                24,766
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,751
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,687
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,079
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      542
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  59
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 13,474
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,796
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,796
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,391
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.52
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,936
<LOANS-PAST>                                       307
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,466
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      653
<RECOVERIES>                                       511
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,721
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,721
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 25, 2011 

p0718 

Order 

 

July 25, 2011 

142961 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142961 

 COA: 302541 

Saginaw CC: 09-032822-FC 

MICHAEL EARL YOUNG, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-05-5-3174-38300-371-CV

MARY AUTREY D/B/A MARY AUTREY 	APPELLANT

AND ASSOCIATESJoOhHnNnNyY WiIlLlLiIaAmMsSoOnN aAnNdD ShHaAyYlLyYnN WiIlLlLiIaAmMsSoOnN	APPELLANTS	

SHAYLYN WILLIAMSON

	V.

RANDALL YOUNG   	APPELLEE

FiIrRsStT TeExXaAsS HoOmMeEsS, InNcC. dD/bB/aA G GALLERY CUSTOM HOMES D/B/A FIRST TEXAS CUSTOM HOMES	APPELLEES

GALLERY CUSTOM HOMES D/B/A FIRST TEXAS CUSTOM HOMES FIRST TEXAS CUSTOM HOMES

FIRST TEXAS CUSTOM HOMESInN tThHeE InNtTeErReEsStT oOfF M.F., A ChHiIlLdD

aAlLlLeErRyY CuUsStToOmM HoOmMeEsS dD/bB/aA FiIrRsStT TeExXaAsS CuUsStToOmM HoOmMeEsS

	----------

	FROM COUNTY393RDTHE 89TH89TH 393RD DISTRICT COURT  COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF WICHITA DENTON TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On jUNEJune 2, 2005 jANARYJanauary 25, 2006ry April 12, 2001, we notified appellants that hits their its brief had not been filed as required by TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).  We stated we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellants or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  We have not received any response.

	Because appellant’’s’ brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

	Appellants shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		

PANEL D:	cayCAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON,  and DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

	DELIVERED:  j February 16, 2006JUNEune 30, 2005	DO NOT PUBLISH

		TEX. R. APP. P.  47.3(a)
Exhibit 32.2
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
  (1)
    
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2011, as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 /S/ RICHARD L. TRAVIS, JR.Richard L. Travis, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
May 10, 2011 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.
# Associates recognized as BBP Stars

/ Published Oct. 23, 2015
COLUMBUS, Ohio, * Better Buying Power 3.0*

**Jay Enfield, Brian Wiseman, Robert Bates and Chris Hancock**: Superior team effort in partnering with a supplier to conduct a partial quality audit on 65 items that included 24 KID 1-4’s, created standard language for weapon system coded items and continues to support the vendor through ESA approval to ultimately increase competition on future acquisitions. **BBP tenets:**Eliminate Unproductive Processes and Bureaucracy and Promote Effective Competition**Rosella Lynn:**Consistently produces on average 100 awards per month, while taking personal ownership in supporting Agency level initiatives like BBP and Time To Award (TTA). **BBP tenets:**Incentivize Productivity in Industry and Government 

**Maritime Micro Purchase Team:**Achieved success by developing and refining business procedures, reducing in the occurrence of over procurements, and focusing on stewardship through cost savings. **BBP tenets:**Achieve Affordable Programs, Eliminate Unproductive Processes and Bureaucracy, and Improve Tradecraft in Acquisition Services

**DLA Land and Maritime Training Council:**Outstanding, continuous success resulting from their efforts in developing systematic approaches that identify and track certifications, leveraging council members knowledge, and providing targeted training for associates. **BBP tenets:** Improve the Professionalism of the Total Acquisition Workforce

**Land Combat Vehicles Division Large Purchase Team**: This team has made extensive efforts to partner with suppliers. Through their focused efforts using multi-source contracts, reverse auctions and small business opportunities, they have saved $390K, cleared more than 700 lines of backorders, and awarded $17M to small businesses. **BBP tenets:**Incentivize Productivity in Industry and Government, Incentivize Innovation in Industry and Government, and Promote Effective Competition

**DLA Land and Maritime Price Pending CLIN Team:**This team was integral in the groundbreaking and refinement of the Price Pending CLIN process developed to combat no or slow quotes from sole source manufacturers as part of Time To Award. Through their efforts, $8.2M has been successfully awarded with significant lead time reductions. **BBP tenets:**Incentivize Productivity in Industry and Government

**Theresa Boutchyard:** Championed a successful effort to competitively break out a sole-source Patriot Missile System item; taking action to ensure the small business industrial base would be used, and developed an innovative multiple-award long-term contract acquisition strategy to leverage competition into the future.  These accomplishments culminated in the award of two contracts that will result in a savings of 16% for the Government. **BBP tenets: Promote Effective Competition**

Look for these and future BBP Stars on the DLA BBP website.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1679]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP96-366-007]


Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Report of Refunds

January 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on January 14, 1998, Florida Gas Transmission 
Company (FGT) tendered for filing a refund report reflecting amounts 
refunded to its transportation customers on December 15, 1997 in 
compliance with a Commission Order dated September 24, 1997 under the 
referenced dockets.
    FGT states that in accordance with the terms of the Commission's 
Order, FGT has refunded to each of its customers an amount, including 
interest, equal to the difference between: (1) the total payments 
actually made by each customer for services rendered to it during the 
period March 1, 1997 through October 31, 1997; and (2) the total 
payments that each customer would have made for such services if the 
rates paid by the customer during this period had equaled the refund 
rates. The refund rates are contained in 1) Appendix A, page 1 of the 
August 5, 1997 Settlement in the referenced dockets as approved by the 
Commission Order dated September 24, 1997, and 2) the tariff sheets set 
forth in FGT's November 12, 1997 ``Compliance Filing to Place 
Settlement Rates Into Effect,'' as approved by Commission Order dated 
January 12, 1998.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 first Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before January 27, 1998. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1679 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2013359EN.01000602.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/6

---

Action brought on 15 October 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-540/13)

2013/C 359/09

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola, M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The European Parliament claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2013/392/EU of 22 July 2013 fixing the date of effect of Decision 2008/633/JHA concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2013/392/EU of 22 July 2013 fixing the date of effect of Decision 2008/633/JHA concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences; (1)

1

| — | maintain the effects of Council Decision 2013/392/EU, until such time that it is replaced by a new act adopted in accordance with law; |
| --- | --- |

—

maintain the effects of Council Decision 2013/392/EU, until such time that it is replaced by a new act adopted in accordance with law;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament puts forward two pleas in law in support of its action.

First, the European Parliament disputes the Council’s use of an incorrect decision-making procedure for the adoption of Decision 2013/392/EU. The European Parliament should in fact have been involved in the adoption of the contested decision under an ordinary legislative procedure. Having not been involved with the adoption of the act, the European Parliament considers that the decision-making procedure followed by the Council is vitiated by an essential procedural requirement.

Second, the European Parliament alleges that the Council used either a legal basis which had been repealed by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, or a secondary legal basis which is unlawful under the case-law of the Court of Justice.

Finally, should the Court of Justice decide to annul the contested decision, the Parliament considers that it would be appropriate for the Court to maintain the effects of the contested decision, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time that it is replaced by a new act adopted in accordance with law.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 198, p. 45.

1

---
535 P.2d 1308

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. William Dean WEHRHAN, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 531.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

June 3, *1975.*

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1975.

Review Denied Sept. 23, 1975.

Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen. by John S. O’Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for appellee.

John M. Neis, Pima County Public Defender, by Frederic J. Dardis, Asst. Public Defender, Tucson, for appellant.

OPINION

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of burglary and grand theft. The court sentenced him to serve a term of not less than three nor more than five years for the burglary count and not less than two nor more than five years for grand theft, to run concurrently with the burglary sentence. Two issues are raised on appeal. Only one needs to be considered at this time.

Appellant claims that his right to a speedy trial under Rule 8.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., has been violated. On August 7, 1974, appellant and John Martinez were indicted for burglary and grand theft. Eight days later appel*78lant was arraigned. Trial was set for October 24. On September 17, 1974, appellant moved to sever his trial from that of John Martinez. The court granted appellant’s motion. Shortly thereafter, the attorney for Martinez moved for and was granted a continuance until November 26. Through a clerical error, the court administrator’s office believed that the continuance applied to appellant as well as Martinez, and appellant’s trial was not begun until December 2, 1974 — fully 106 days (excluding two days’ delay occasioned by appellant’s motion to sever) after appellant was arraigned.

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Rule 8 which was denied by the court below explaining :

> “This case having been severed — the case of this defendant, rather, having been severed from the other case— the case of the other defendant, recently —and a substitution of counsel in that case — and the substitute counsel asking for the continuance, and it being granted —tended to create a confused situation as to the case, causing the court administrator’s office to — with all of the other congestion — to lose sight of the fact that this case had not been continued.”

In failing to grant appellant’s motion to dismiss, the court below. erred. Appellee contends that the time from October 22, when the Chief Justice recognized the court congestion in Pima County as an emergency situation, until the date of the trial should be excluded time under Rule 8.4(c) as a delay “necessitated by congestion of the trial calendar . . . .” Yet, as the above quotation indicates, the delay in this case was necessitated by a clerical error, not by court congestion. Because appellant was not tried within the time limits dictated by Rule 8, it is necessary that the case be remanded to determine whether to dismiss with or without prejudice. State ex rel. Berger v. Superior Court, 111 Ariz. 335, 529 P.2d 686 (1974).

The judgment is vacated, the sentence is set aside and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

KRUCKER and HATHAWAY, JJ., concur.
Jeff Faistenhammer 

26029 East River Road 

Grosse Ile, MI 48138-1855 

July 13 , 2015 

EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111 Air and Radiation Docket, MC 2 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington , DC 20460 

Re : Comments regarding EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111 

Dear EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111 : 

As a recreational boat owner I am deeply concerned with the proposal 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111), which will increase the mandated ethanol volumes 

in the nation's fuel supply to record levels. If adopted , these 

obligations will make it more difficult for me to find fuel that is safe 

to use in my boat's engine. 

The proposed Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) for 2015 and 2016 will 

force a greater amount of ElS and higher ethanol blends to be pushed on to 

the American public . It is prohibited to use El5 in my marine engine and 

it has been shown to cause damage . EPA should set the RVO levels so that I 

can be assured an adequate supply of fuel that is safe for my family's 

boating . 

I am also very concerned that not enough has been done to prevent the 

mis-fueling of my boat with the higher ethanol blends. The mis-fueling 

mitigation plans currently available , little more than one sticker on fuel 

pumps , do not provide sufficient protection against my inadvertently using 

the wrong gasoline in my boat. 

EPA must act to assure there is fuel available that will not put my engine 

at risk of being damaged and that I will not unintentionally put the wrong 

f ue l in my boat . Thank you for your considerat ion of my views.
No. 10-7830.

#### Roberto Rivera, Petitioner v. Ruth E. Smith, et al.

562 U.S. 1176, 131 S. Ct. 1037,

178 L. Ed. 2d 824,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 846.

January 18, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until February 8, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17994]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts


Combined Arts Panel

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the Combined Arts Panel, Literature Section (Creation & Presentation 
and Planning & Stabilization categories) to the National Council on the 
Arts will be held on August 4-6, 1998. The panel will meet from 9:00 
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on August 4 and August 5, and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m. on August 6, in Room M-07 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20506. A portion of this 
meeting, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on August 6, will be open to the 
public for a policy discussion on field issues and needs, Leadership 
Initiatives, Millennium projects, and guidelines.
    The remaining portions of this meeting, from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 
on August 4 and August 5, and from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on August 6, 
are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and 
recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the 
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as 
amended, including information given in confidence to the agency by 
grant applicants. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman 
of May 14, 1998, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant 
to subsection (c) (4), (6) and (9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, 
United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels which are open to the public, and, if time allows, may be 
permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion 
of the panel chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal 
employee in attendance.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-
TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information will reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, 
National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506, or call 202/
682-5691.

    Dated: July 1, 1998.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 98-17994 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
### Docket No. FAA- 2015 - 8426 Dir ID 2015 - NM - 006 -AD

**C ontacts.**  W i th w h o m o u tsi de t he FA A h a s th i s prop os al been d i s c u s s ed? O rgan i z at i on P ers on C onta cted **D ate**  Re s pon s e **N at** **i o**  **n a**  **l B**  **u s**  **ine s**  **s Aircr**  **af t**  **A ss**  **o ci**  **at i**  **on E**  **li C**  **ott i**  1 / 15 / 15 **Re g**  **i o**  **n a**  **l Airline**  **A ss**  **o ci**  **at i**  **o n**  1 / 15 / 1 5 **Aircr af**  **t O**  **w ners**  **& P**  **il ot**  **s A**  **s s**  **o ci**  **at i**  **o n**  **R o**  **bert Ha**  **ck m**  **a n**  1 / 15 / 15 **Airlines fo**  **r A**  **m erica**  **R o**  **bert I**  **rel a**  **nd** 1 / 15 / 15