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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Statement  of  Financial  Position at  September  30, 2000  (Unaudited)  and the
Statement of Income for the nine months ended September 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                            49,118
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     15,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  64,293
<PP&E>                                            78,554
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (2,587)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   266,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             73,394
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                          500
<COMMON>                                          11,289
<OTHER-SE>                                       181,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     266,998
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 472,223
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 4,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (476,880)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (476,880)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (476,880)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.04)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                  DEC-3-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                               7,518
<SECURITIES>                                        60,880
<RECEIVABLES>                                       29,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                           600
<INVENTORY>                                         28,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   128,086
<PP&E>                                             108,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                      78,121
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     160,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               19,446
<BONDS>                                                620
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,313
<OTHER-SE>                                         132,575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       160,980
<SALES>                                            156,136
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   156,136
<CGS>                                              133,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      133,466
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    14,150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     12,596
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  8,796
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         8,796
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.52
                                               


</TABLE>
stlt_ex109.htm



EXHIBIT 10.9


 





 





  





1











  

















 




  





2











  






 









  





3











  

















  





4
*June 2001 DRAFT*

DoD 4000.25-2-M

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP3.16. APPENDIX 3.16**

**LOGISTICS TRANSFER/DECAPITALIZATION FOLLOW-UP**

**AP3.16-**

AP3.16-1

APPENDIX 3.16
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6001

DAVID EARL JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PAUL G. BUTLER, JR.; WILLIS J. FOWLER; ANTHONY E. RAND; 

DERRICK WADSWORTH,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

BEVERLY PERDUE; PATRICK L. MCCRORY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

Chief District Judge. (5:14-ct-03142-D)

Submitted: May 25, 2016 Decided: June 14, 2016

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Earl Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Special 

Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Earl Jones appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones 

v. Butler, No. 5:14-ct-03142-D (E.D.N.C. Dec. 15, 2015). We 

deny as unnecessary Jones’ motion for a certificate of 

appealability. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
CS245716

World TB Day

March 24

Find 

TB.

Treat 

TB.

Working together to eliminate

TB.
No. 10-10937.

#### Felix Antonio Blanco Marte, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

565 U.S. 858, 132 S. Ct. 192,

181 L. Ed. 2d 99,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6146.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 417 Fed. Appx. 216.
Exhibit No. 31.2 

Form 10-K 

Synthetic Blood International, Inc. 

**Certification**

I, David Johnson, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2006 of Synthetic Blood International, Inc.; 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

Date: July 27, 2006
FILED

FEBRUARY 27, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTION AT NASHVILLE

 

JERRY RAY BROWN, )

 )

Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Davidson Law No. 96C-1205

 )

vs. )

 ) Appeal No. 01A01-9702-CV-00049

PHILLIP L. DAVIDSON, )

 )

Defendant/Appellee. )

_________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing of Plaintiff/Appellant Jerry Ray Brown, the

petition is denied.

Enter this day of February, 1998.

 

HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.

 

W. FRANK CRAWFORD, P. J., W.S.

 

ALAN E. HIGHERS, J.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Mendoza-Escatel, Petitioner,*

No. 91793-1.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 71218-7-1, April 27, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1014. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
DISTRIBUTION
5430 MIFFLIN AVENUE
NEW CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA 17070-5008

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
An Agency of the United States Government

This Notice is posted pursuant to an order by the Defense Logistics Agency dated
April 12, 2023 which found that discrimination based on sex (female) occurred at the
Defense Logistics Agency’s Distribution, Albany, Georgia, which violated the 29 Code of Federal
Regulations 1614.

Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for
employment because of the person's RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN,
AGE, GENETIC INFORMATION, DISABILITY, or REPRISAL with respect to hiring, firing,
promotion, compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

This facility was found to have violated the Code of Federal Regulation 1614, when the Agency
denied the employee a temporary assignment based on her sex (female). The facility was ordered
to calculate compensatory damages the victim incurred and pay them (with right to review by DLA
General Counsel). This facility will ensure that officials responsible for personnel decisions and
terms and conditions of employment will abide by the requirements of all federal equal
employment opportunity laws and will not retaliate against employees who file EEO complaints.

This facility will comply with federal laws and will not in any manner restrain, interfere, coerce,
or retaliate against any individual who exercises his or her right to oppose practices made unlawful

by, or who participates in proceedings pursuant G Mi) equal employment opportunity law.
Duly Authorized Agency Representative:

Date Posted: _ May 10, 2023
Posting Expires: July 11, 2023
29 C.F.R. Part 1614
# C_2015107EN.01002801.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/28

---

Order of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan v OHIM — Kik Textilien (KICKS)

(Case T-532/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 107/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: K. Strömholm, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 991/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH et Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.

---
**RELIABILITY INCORPORATED**

 

**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-26659 and 33-60696) pertaining to the ReliabilityIncorporated 1997 Stock Option Plan and the Reliability Incorporated Employee Stock Savings Plan and Trust, respectively, of our report dated March 8, 2005, except for Note 11, as to which the date is March 24, 2006, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Reliability Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 2004 included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Houston, Texas 

March 24, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18798]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-138-007]


Shell Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

July 9, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 1, 1998 Shell Gas Pipeline Company (SGPC) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 
1, Sub. Third Revised Sheet No. 137, proposed to be effective June 30, 
1998.
    SGPC states the purpose of the filing is to correctly state the 
GISB standards that were incorporated by reference on its filing made 
June 2, 1998 in Docket No. RP97-138-006.
    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 as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 proceedings. 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. 98-18798 Filed 7-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2014031EN.01001102.xml

| 1.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/11

---

Action brought on 30 October 2013 — Lesaffre et Compagnie v OHIM — Louis Baking Company (BAKING CENTER BY TECHNOLINE)

(Case T-575/13)

2014/C 31/20

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lesaffre et Compagnie (Paris, France) (represented by: T. De Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Louis Baking Company, SL (Girona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul in its entirety the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 August 2013 in Case R 2333/2012-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in its entirety the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 August 2013 in Case R 2333/2012-4; and

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Lesaffre in the proceedings before the General Court and before the Fourth Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Lesaffre in the proceedings before the General Court and before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Louis Baking Company, SL

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Coloured figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BAKING CENTER By TECHNOLINE’ for goods and services in Classes 30, 35 and 42 — Application for Community trade mark No 9 195 793

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: French mark ‘BAKING CENTER’ for services in Class 41

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
### Siloxanes ECA Meeting Agenda

Thursday December 6 , 2012

1 :3 0

- 3 :3 0 PM EST

Location: Room 4225 , EPA East,

1201 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20460

Teleconference: (866) 299

- 3188; code: (202) 564

- 4760

Agenda:

I. Introduction s

II. EPA ’s Objectives for Siloxane Monitoring

– Clarifying Discussion

III. Estimated Costs of Monitoring

IV. EPA Plans for D4 Risk Assessment

V. SEHSC Perspectives on D4 Risk Assessment

VI. Interested Party Input

VII. Adjourn

For further information, please contact Marcus Aguilar at (202) 564

- 3194 or

aguilar.marcus@epa.gov
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51409

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN DUQUE-CONTRERAS, also known as

Juan Dugue-Contreras,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-02-CR-453-1-WWJ

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Juan Duque-Contreras appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Duque-Contreras contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have
No. 02-51409

-2-

been alleged in his indictment. Duque-Contreras maintains that

he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be

imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Duque-Contreras acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
No. 10-10859.

#### Andrew Richard Allred, Petitioner v. Florida.

565 U.S. 853, 132 S. Ct. 181,

181 L. Ed. 2d 91,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6406.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 55 So. 3d 1267.
No. 11M7.

#### Justo E. Roque, Jr., Petitioner v. Miguel A. Elias, a Professional Law Corporation.

565 U.S. 808, 132 S. Ct. 78,

181 L. Ed. 2d 10,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6616.

October 3, 2011.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Same case below, 51 So. 3d 26.
Exhibit 23.1
 
 RELIABILITY INCORPORATED
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-26659 and 33-60696) pertaining to the Reliability Incorporated 1997 Stock Option Plan and the Reliability Incorporated Employee Stock Savings Plan and Trust, respectively, of our report dated March 30, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Reliability Incorporated included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009.
 
 
 /s/ Ramirez InternationalFinancial & Accounting Services, Inc.Irvine, CaliforniaMarch 30, 2010