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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          65,329
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             299
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    565,532
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         565,532
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           565,532
<LOANS>                                        980,950
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,110
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,660,196
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,192,174
<SHORT-TERM>                                   238,174
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             15,004
<LONG-TERM>                                     52,403
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           835
<OTHER-SE>                                     161,606
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,660,196
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 61,764
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               29,672
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   100
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                91,536
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              34,551
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,354
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           45,182
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,988
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 402
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 29,261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,408
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      13,424
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.01
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.32
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,181
<LOANS-PAST>                                     5,607
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   377
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    674
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                10,756
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     2489
<RECOVERIES>                                       855
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,110
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            13,110
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# L_2008116EN.01005601.xml

| 30.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 116/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/56

---

COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2008/348/CFSP

of 29 April 2008

concerning restrictive measures against Uzbekistan

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 13 November 2007, the Council adopted Common Position 2007/734/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Uzbekistan (1). That Common Position renewed certain restrictive measures that were imposed by Common Position 2005/792/CFSP (2) in response to the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by the Uzbek security forces during events in Andijan in May 2005. However, with a view to encouraging the Uzbek authorities to take positive steps to improve the human rights situation and taking into account the commitments of the Uzbek authorities, the restrictions on admission were suspended for a period of six months. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 13 November 2007, the Council adopted Common Position 2007/734/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Uzbekistan (1). That Common Position renewed certain restrictive measures that were imposed by Common Position 2005/792/CFSP (2) in response to the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by the Uzbek security forces during events in Andijan in May 2005. However, with a view to encouraging the Uzbek authorities to take positive steps to improve the human rights situation and taking into account the commitments of the Uzbek authorities, the restrictions on admission were suspended for a period of six months.

| (2) | Following a review of the situation in Uzbekistan, the Council considers it appropriate to extend the suspension of the restrictions on admission for a further period of six months, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following a review of the situation in Uzbekistan, the Council considers it appropriate to extend the suspension of the restrictions on admission for a further period of six months,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

The application of the measures referred to in Article 3 of Common Position 2007/734/CFSP shall be suspended until 13 November 2008.

Article 2

This Common Position shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 29 April 2008.

For the Council

The President

D. RUPEL

---

(1)  
  OJ L 295, 14.11.2007, p. 34.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2005, p. 72. Common Position as amended by Common Position 2007/338/CFSP (OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 50).

2

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 16

- 5682

_____________________________ C HARLES E DWARD L EE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County

. William E. Davis , Judge

. July 17, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and R OWE , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________ Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,416,297
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,977
<ALLOWANCES>                                    68,000
<INVENTORY>                                    491,717
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,109,740
<PP&E>                                         155,261
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,142,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,824,828
<BONDS>                                      2,976,289
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        98,957
<OTHER-SE>                                     715,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,142,956
<SALES>                                        253,104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               347,010
<CGS>                                          303,832
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  303,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,012,385
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,541,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,511,196)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,511,196)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,511,196)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER PAVEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-772 WL

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Christopher Pavey, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging a prison disciplinary sanction. (DE 1.) In ISP #13-01-0111, Pavey was found guilty

of possession of a weapon. (DE 1-1 at 1.) As a result he lost earned-time credits, among other

sanctions. (Id.) After he filed this petition, the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”)

vacated the guilty finding and remanded the case for a new hearing. (DE 9-1.) Based on the

IDOC’s action, the respondent moves to dismiss the petition. (DE 9.) As the respondent points

out, because the guilty finding has been vacated and the case remanded for a new hearing, there

is at present nothing for this court to review. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir.

2003) (prisoner can challenge prison disciplinary determination in habeas proceeding only when

it resulted in a sanction that lengthened the duration of his confinement). 

Pavey has filed an “objection” to the motion. (DE 10.) He argues that it violates double

jeopardy principles to charge him again based on the same incident, and asks the court to bar any

rehearing. This argument is unavailing, however, because double jeopardy principles do not

apply in the prison disciplinary context. See Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996).

case 3:13-cv-00772-WCL document 11 filed 01/24/14 page 1 of 2
Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed. If Pavey is dissatisfied with the results of the new

hearing, he is free to file a new habeas petition after exhausting his administrative remedies.

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss (DE 9) is GRANTED, and the

petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: January 24, 2014

 s/William C. Lee 

William C. Lee, Judge

United States District Court

2

case 3:13-cv-00772-WCL document 11 filed 01/24/14 page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned officer of Media 100 Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies to my
knowledge that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2003 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: July 15, 2003 |  | Signed: |  | /s/    John A. Molinari
|------------------- |  | ------- |  | -----------------------
|                    |  |         |  | Name:                  
|                    |  |         |  | Title:                 



|Date: July 15, 2003 |  | Signed: |  | /s/    Steven D. Shea
|------------------- |  | ------- |  | ---------------------
|                    |  |         |  | Name:                
|                    |  |         |  | Title:
&9)*#*5"

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00042-WCL-SLC document 3 filed 12/29/14 page 1 of 3
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00042-WCL-SLC document 3 filed 12/29/14 page 2 of 3
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00042-WCL-SLC document 3 filed 12/29/14 page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CR-32-JTM

 )

MIRANDA BRAKLEY, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT MIRANDA BRAKLEY

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant Miranda Brakley’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came for hearing before Magistrate Judge Paul

R. Cherry, on January 20, 2016, with the consent of Defendant Miranda Brakley, counsel for

Defendant Miranda Brakley, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant Miranda Brakley’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule

11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the

record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant Miranda Brakley

under oath on the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States

Attorney and of counsel for Defendant Miranda Brakley,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant Miranda Brakley understands the nature of the charge against her to which

the plea is offered;

(2) that Defendant Miranda Brakley understands her right to trial by jury, to persist in her
plea of not guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse

witnesses, and her right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant Miranda Brakley understands what the maximum possible sentence is,

including the effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant Miranda Brakley understands that

the sentencing guidelines apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some

circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant Miranda Brakley has been knowingly and voluntarily

made and is not the result of force or threats or of promises;

(5) that Defendant Miranda Brakley is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant Miranda Brakley understands that her answers may later be used against

her in a prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant Miranda Brakley’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Miranda Brakley’s plea of guilty to the offense

charged in Count I of the Indictment and that Defendant Miranda Brakley be adjudged guilty of the

offense charged in Count I of the Indictment and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has

been ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be accepted and Miranda Brakley be

adjudged guilty, a sentencing date before Judge James T. Moody will be set by separate order.

Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen

days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

SO ORDERED this 20th day of January, 2016.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
#### Marion Jones, Appellant, v Charles Schockett, Defendant, and La Guardia Medical Group, P. C., et al., Respondents.

— In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), entered May 3, 1983, as was in favor of defendants La Guardia Medical Group, P. C., and Dr. Shelly Wang, and from an order of the same court dated May 6,1983, which denied that branch of plaintiff’s motion which sought to set aside the verdict in favor of those defendants.

Order affirmed, and judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff sought to establish that defendant Dr. Shelly Wang departed from accepted medical practice when she failed to discontinue plaintiff’s use of diabinese, the medication used to control her diabetes.

Plaintiff claimed that she visited Dr. Wang on August 31, 1979, exhibiting symptoms of a rash, bumps and itching, and that notwithstanding these signs of an allergic reaction to diabinese, Dr. Wang gave her a new prescription for the drug.

Dr. Wang claimed that plaintiff had not exhibited any signs of a rash or bumps, but complained only of itching, and had informed Dr. Wang that she had taken some “old Diabinese”. *822The expert witnesses, without exception, testified that itching is a nonspecific symptom common in diabetics.

The documentary evidence supported Dr. Wang’s testimony, and showed that plaintiff did not have any signs of a rash until at least September 4, 1979.

There was no expert testimony to the effect that Dr. Wang departed from accepted medical practice when she prescribed diabinese, and attributed plaintiff’s itching to either her diabetes or her ingestion of “old Diabinese”.

There was testimony by defendant Schockett as to his practice, but not as to accepted medical practice. There was expert testimony that Dr. Wang did not depart from accepted medical practice.

The weight to be accorded to the conflicting testimony of experts is a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury. *(Sternemann v Langs,*93 AD2d 819). Further, although a medical malpractice panel issued a unanimous finding of liability against appellants, a finding of liability by a medical malpractice panel is not binding on the jury and is “accorded such weight as the jury * * * chooses to ascribe to it” (Judiciary Law § 148-a [8]). On the record before us, we cannot say that the jury’s finding of no negligence on the part of Dr. Wang was against the weight of the evidence.

Because the jury found that Dr. Wang was not negligent, it did not reach the issues of proximate cause and damages. Therefore, we need not resolve plaintiff’s remaining claims of trial error which address these two latter issues *(cf. Sabatino v Turf House,*76 AD2d 945). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12796]



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


NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts, Museum Advisory 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 Museum Advisory Panel (Overview Section) to the National Council 
on the Arts will be held on June 13-14, 1995, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 
p.m. on June 13 and from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on June 14, This 
meeting will be held in room M-07 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20506.
    This meeting will be open to the public on a space available basis.
    Any interested person may observe meetings or portions thereof, 
which are open to the public, and may be permitted to participate in 
the discussions at the discretion of the meeting 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 Special Constituencies, National Endowment for 
the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20506, 202/
682-5532, TYY 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the 
meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Mr. Yvonne M. Sabine, Committee Management Officer, National 
Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C. 20506, or call 202/682-5433.

    Dated: May 19, 1995.
Yvonne M. Sabine,
Director, Office of Council and Panel Operations, National Endowment 
for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 95-12796 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
# L_2008106EN.01002401.xml

| 16.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 106/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 106/24

---

Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2008/260/EC of 18 March 2008 granting certain parties an exemption from the extension to certain bicycle parts of the anti-dumping duty on bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93, last maintained and amended by Regulation (EC) No 1095/2005, and lifting the suspension of the payment of the anti-dumping duty extended to certain bicycle parts originating in the People’s Republic of China granted to certain parties pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 81 of 20 March 2008
  )

On page 80, Article 5:

for:

‘This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.’,

read:

‘This Decision is addressed to the Member States and to the parties listed in Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4.’

---
**J M** **K** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9 - 0 020 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JACOB ANDREW SAUNDERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 60 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including February 19, 2021 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 11 2020

12/11/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0020
USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00033-HAB-SLC document 160 filed 01/27/20 page 1 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00033-HAB-SLC document 160 filed 01/27/20 page 2 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00033-HAB-SLC document 160 filed 01/27/20 page 3 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00033-HAB-SLC document 160 filed 01/27/20 page 4 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00033-HAB-SLC document 160 filed 01/27/20 page 5 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00033-HAB-SLC document 160 filed 01/27/20 page 6 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00033-HAB-SLC document 160 filed 01/27/20 page 7 of 8
/s/ Stacey R. Speith

/s/ Ala El Bashatly

/s/ Stacy R. Uliana

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cr-00033-HAB-SLC document 160 filed 01/27/20 page 8 of 8
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2152 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkanox ZMB–2/C5. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2005 

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkanox ZMB–2/C5. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. VULKANOX ZMB–2/C5. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.06.06 2-Mercapto-4(5)- 

methylbenzimidazole, zinc 

salt (CAS No. 61617–00–3) 

coated with mineral oil (provided for in subheading 

2933.99.82) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2152 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ