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

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    SEP-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                       SEP-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         JUN-02-2000
<CASH>                                 7,314,491
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                          4,457,569
<ALLOWANCES>                            (224,291)
<INVENTORY>                            8,304,496
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      21,544,039
<PP&E>                                13,747,796
<DEPRECIATION>                        (9,508,952)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        27,105,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  9,001,423
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                 123,146
<OTHER-SE>                            17,408,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          27,105,708
<SALES>                               18,769,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      18,769,890
<CGS>                                 13,677,581
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         21,158,225
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        (306,099)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          45,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        69,289
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (2,151,525)
<INCOME-TAX>                            (795,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (1,356,525)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                          (1,356,525)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.12)


</TABLE>
# Euroopan unionin C 134I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-1053 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 134I |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 65. vuosikerta25. maaliskuu 2022 |

ISSN 1977-1053

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 134I

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

65. vuosikerta25. maaliskuu 2022

---

| Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Tiedotteet |
| | EUROOPAN UNIONIN TOIMIELINTEN, ELINTEN, TOIMISTOJEN JA VIRASTOJEN TIEDOTTEET |
| | Euroopan komissio |
| 2022/C 134 I/01 | Tiivistelmä lääkkeiden myyntilupia koskevista Euroopan unionin päätöksistä 25 päivänä maaliskuuta 2022
  (Julkaistu Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 726/2004 13 tai 38 artiklan nojalla) | 1 |

Sisältö

Sivu

IV   Tiedotteet

EUROOPAN UNIONIN TOIMIELINTEN, ELINTEN, TOIMISTOJEN JA VIRASTOJEN TIEDOTTEET

Euroopan komissio

2022/C 134 I/01

Tiivistelmä lääkkeiden myyntilupia koskevista Euroopan unionin päätöksistä 25 päivänä maaliskuuta 2022
  (Julkaistu Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 726/2004 13 tai 38 artiklan nojalla)

(Julkaistu Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 726/2004 13 tai 38 artiklan nojalla

1

---

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

IV Tiedotteet

EUROOPAN UNIONIN TOIMIELINTEN, ELINTEN, TOIMISTOJEN JA VIRASTOJEN TIEDOTTEET

Euroopan komissio

| 25.3.2022 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CI 134/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2022

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CI 134/1

---

Tiivistelmä lääkkeiden myyntilupia koskevista Euroopan unionin päätöksistä 25 päivänä maaliskuuta 2022

(Julkaistu Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 726/2004 13 tai 38 artiklan nojalla (1))

(2022/C 134 I/01)

| — | Myyntiluvan myöntäminen (Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 726/2004 13 artikla): Hyväksytyt













  Päätöksen päivämäärä | Lääkkeen nimi | INN-nimi (kansainvälinen yleisnimi) | Myyntiluvan haltija | Yhteisön rekisteriin merkitty numero | Lääkemuoto | ATC-koodi (anatomis-terapeuttis-kemiallinen koodi) | Ilmoituksen päivämäärä |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 25.03.2022 | EVUSHELD | tiksagevimabi / silgavimabi | AstraZeneca AB
  151 85 Södertälje, Sverige | EU/1/22/1651 | Injektioneste, liuos | J06BD03 | 25.3.2022 |

—

Myyntiluvan myöntäminen (Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 726/2004 13 artikla): Hyväksytyt

Päätöksen päivämäärä

Lääkkeen nimi

INN-nimi (kansainvälinen yleisnimi)

Myyntiluvan haltija

Yhteisön rekisteriin merkitty numero

Lääkemuoto

ATC-koodi (anatomis-terapeuttis-kemiallinen koodi)

Ilmoituksen päivämäärä

25.03.2022

EVUSHELD

tiksagevimabi / silgavimabi

AstraZeneca AB

151 85 Södertälje, Sverige

EU/1/22/1651

Injektioneste, liuos

J06BD03

25.3.2022

Kyseisten lääkkeiden julkiseen arviointilausuntoon ja siihen liittyviin päätöksiin voi tutustua ottamalla yhteyttä seuraavaan osoitteeseen:

| European Medicines Agency |
| --- |
| Domenico Scarlattilaan 6 |
| 1083 HS Amsterdam |
| NETHERLANDS |

European Medicines Agency

Domenico Scarlattilaan 6

1083 HS Amsterdam

NETHERLANDS

---

(1)  EUVL L 136, 30.4.2004, s. 1.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

STEVE MOSSMAN IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS DENTON COUNTY 

TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR,

 Appellant,

v.

BANATEX, L.L.C.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-13-00245-CV

Appeal from the

431st Judicial District Court

of Denton County, Texas 

(TC# 2012-71334-431)

O R D E R

Steve Mossman, the Denton County Tax Assessor-Collector, has appealed a writ of 

mandamus issued by the trial court. Mossman’s successor, Michelle French, filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus seeking review of the trial court’s order which granted Banatex’s motion to 

deny suspension of the judgment. French also filed a motion for emergency relief and we 

entered an order staying the trial court’s order pending our review of the mandamus petition. In 

an opinion issued this same date, we dismissed the mandamus petition and re-filed as a motion 

for review under TEX.R.APP.P. 24.4(a)(4). See In re Michelle French, No. 08-13-00254-CV 

(Tex.App.--El Paso October 2, 2013, orig. proceeding). On our own motion, we order that the 

trial court’s order granting the motion to deny suspension of the judgment is stayed pending our 

review of the Rule 24.4 motion or further order of this Court. See TEX.R.APP.P. 24.4(c)(“The 

appellate court may issue any temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights.”).

October 2, 2013 PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

Rivera, J. (Not Participating)
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 483 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 483

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for 
   treatment of clinical psychologists as physicians for purposes of 
 furnishing clinical psychologist services under the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 2011

Ms. Snowe (for herself and Mr. Bingaman) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for 
   treatment of clinical psychologists as physicians for purposes of 
 furnishing clinical psychologist services under the Medicare program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Mental Health Access Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS AS PHYSICIANS FOR PURPOSES 
              OF FURNISHING CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 1861(r) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' before ``(5)''; and
            (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or 
        (6) a clinical psychologist, but only with respect to the 
        furnishing of qualified psychologist services described in 
        subsection (ii) for which the psychologist is legally 
        authorized to perform by the State and who is acting within the 
        scope of the psychologist's license (or other authorization 
        under State law)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2012.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


I, Kevin Brennan, Chief Executive Officer of XRG, Inc. (the "Company"),  certify
that:

         I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB Amendment No.1 of
XRG, Inc.

         Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 respect to the period covered by this annual
report.

         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,
and for, the periods, presented in the report.

         The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have:

         (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which the periodic report is being prepared;

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the Company's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting;
and

         The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Company's auditors and to the audit committee of the board of directors (or
persons fulfilling the equivalent function):


<PAGE>

         (i) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

         (ii) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control
over financial reporting.

Dated:    March 31, 2005


/s/  Kevin Brennan
-----------------------------
Kevin Brennan,
Chief Executive Officer
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research: Wooster, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Groups
                        Corn & Soybean Virus Lab
                                    Soft Wheat Quality LabSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Wooster, Ohio Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research Docs







Business (2)headline bar Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory Partnering Corn and Soybean Virology Partners and Collaborators


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
# EXHIBIT 32

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

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (the Report) of One Link 4
Travel, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004, each of the
undersigned, F. W. Guerin, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Alan K. Geddes, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and belief:

(1)       
          the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)       
          the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                                                    |                                                                                                                               
|------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated April 15, 2005  
                      
Dated: April 15, 2005 | /s/ F. W. Guerin
F. W. Guerin, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Alan K. Geddes
Alan K. Geddes, Chief Financial Officer

_________________
August 19, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JACOB ALFRED BLANKEN , Appellant
NO. 14

- 13

- 00496

- CR , NO. 14

- 13

- 00497

- CR
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Daniel MALONDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73143.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.

Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial, OIL, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*414Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Malonda, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Malonda established extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse his untimely asylum application. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, Malonda’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Malonda failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in Indonesia by or with the acquiescence of the government. *See Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1068.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Malonda experienced harms in Indonesia that rise to the level of past persecution. *See Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1059-60 (being beaten, robbed, and accosted by a threatening mob did not compel a past persecution finding). However, in analyzing Malonda’s fear of future persecution, the agency did not apply the disfavored group analysis set forth in *Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). In light of this and our intervening decisions in *Tampubolon v. Holder,*610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.2010), and *Wakkary,*we remand for the agency to assess Malonda’s withholding of removal claim under the disfavored group analysis in the first instance. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 99.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the annual report of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, W. Brian Olson, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|Date: June 30, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/    W. BRIAN
OLSON
|------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|                    |  |  |  |                      
|                    |  |  |  |                      



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. and will be retained by Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### ROBINSON v. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO.

(Supreme Court, Trial Term, New York County.

December 2, 1907.)

Master and Servant—Injuries to Servant—Res Ipsa Loquitur.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, where the relation of master and servant exists, if it appears from the facts and surrounding circumstances that the accident would not have happened, had reasonable care been exercised.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, §§ 877, 881.]

Action by Anne Robinson against the Consolidated Gas Company. Motion to set aside a verdict for plaintiff. Motion denied.

Edward F. Brown, for plaintiff.

E. S. Berry, for defendant.

DAYTON, J.

The contention of defendant’s counsel that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in negligence cases, where the relation of master and servant exists, is refuted by one of the authorities cited to sustain that proposition, to wit, Fouquet v. N. Y., C. & H. R. R., 53 Misc. Rep. 131, 103 N. Y. Supp. 1105, where the rule is stated as follows:

> “The master has performed his duty to the servant; but if from the surrounding circumstances established, or from such as may be fairly inferred from the facts proved, it appears that the injury would not have happened with the exercise of reasonable care, then the doctrine that ‘things speak for themselves’ applies, and the burden shifts to the master to explain the cause and to show his freedom from negligence”—citing' Grillen v. Manice, 166 N. Y. 188, 59 N. m 925, 52 L. R. A. 922, 82 Am. St. Rep. 630, and other cases.

In my opinion, upon all the evidence in this case, this accident would not have happened if reasonable care had been exercised in the inspection of this scaffold, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was properly charged. Griff en v. Manice, supra.

As to the other questions raised by the defendant’s brief, they all arise upon the facts submitted to the jury in a.charge which left to them the decision of all these.questions. By their verdict they must be held to have found in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant upon each and all of these questions of fact. I have read the record and briefs carefully, and conclude that I would not be justified in setting aside the verdict.

Motion denied.
#### In re NEW YORK TAXICAB CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January, 1912.)

In the matter of the New York Taxicab Company. See memorandum per curiam. See, also, 134 N. Y. Supp. 801.