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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             614
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            4530
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            5922
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              5856
<LOANS>                                          23772
<ALLOWANCE>                                         74
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   35656
<DEPOSITS>                                       24825
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                497
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                       10326
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   35656
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   1905
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  343
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   289
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  2537
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1071
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1071
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1466
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       12
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1219
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    302
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         183
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       183
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.19
<LOANS-NON>                                        117
<LOANS-PAST>                                         4
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    72
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       10
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   74
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                74
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western 1 District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Ho norable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4267

___________ Dennis Campbell, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri Gary Campbell, Regional Director, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 1, 1998 Filed: September 18, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Dennis Campbell appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Western Dis trict of Missouri dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), enacted by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). For reversal, Campbell argues that he did-2-

notrecei ve notice of the magistrate’s recommendation and that this court shoul d conclude he exhausted his administrative remedies because he had exhauste d administrative remedies in a prior case. For the reasons discussed below, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice and affirm the judgment as modified. Campbell, an inmate at the Central Missouri Correctional Center, filed a com plaint alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by not performing corrective eye surgery. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because Campbell had failed to exha ust administrative remedies. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge’s report, dismissed the case, but did not specif y whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
As amen ded by the PLRA, effective April 26, 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a ) provid es that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions unde r section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other corre ctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Because Campbell failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, th e district court correctly dismissed his case. See Brown v. Toombs , 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir. 1998) (per curiam), peti tion for cert. filed , No. 97-8990 (U.S. Apr. 28, 1998); Garrett v. Hawk , 127 F.3d 1263, 1264-66 (10th Cir. 1997). We conclude there is no need to remand based on Campbell’s alleged failure to receive a copy of th e magistrate’s recommendation, because the outcome would not have been changed by his ob jection that he exhausted his administrative remedies in a prior case involvin g different defe ndants at a different prison facility. We believe, however, that under the circumstances of this case the dismissal should be without prejudice.
Ac cordingly, we modify the judgment to be without prejudice and affirm th e judgment as modified.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. ROY G. DUFFY, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

October 17, 1960.

*Mr. Brendan T. Byrne*and *Mr. Sanford M. Jaffe*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Vincent M. Mangino*and *Mr. Warren E. Dunn*for the respondents.

Denied.
#### In the Matter of Jason S. Catholic Guardian Society of the Diocese of Brooklyn, Incorporated, Appellant; Sandra S., Respondent.

—In a child neglect proceeding, petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Rand, J.), dated October 31, 1983, as after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition to permanently terminate the parental rights of the natural mother.

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

The record supports the Family Court’s conclusion that petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it actively aided the child’s natural mother, Sandra S., in her search for suitable housing, when housing was the primary obstacle preventing discharge of the child to his mother’s care *(see,*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [f]; *Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136; Matter *of Sheila G., 61*NY2d 368).

Moreover, although Sandra S. frequently demonstrated a lack of initiative in maintaining regular contact with her child *(see, Matter of Jamie M.,*63 NY2d 388), petitioner was nevertheless obligated, by statute, to work towards strengthening and encouraging the mother-child relationship *(see, Matter of Sheila G., supra).*While the record indicates that the agency initially engaged in meaningful efforts to promote contact between mother and child, it appears that there was a discontinuation of such efforts in mid-1981, after petitioner was ordered by the Family Court to initiate proceedings to terminate the parental rights. For approximately two years prior to the commencement of this proceeding, petitioner followed a course of action which favored adoption over the discharge of the child to the natural mother *(see, Matter of Leon RR.,*48 NY2d 117, 126). Inasmuch as petitioner failed to demonstrate that it satisfactorily discharged its statutory duty to diligently assist in the reuniting of mother and child, we are constrained to conclude that the petition to terminate the parental rights of Sandra S. was properly dismissed.

We do note, however, that the infant was adjudged to be a “Dependent child” within the meaning of Social Services Law § 371 (7). He has never resided with his mother and he has *606never been discharged to her care on either a permanent or a temporary basis since his birth. In view of the foregoing and the fact that more than two years have elapsed since the Family Court rendered its determination, petitioner may wish to consider the advisability of commencing a new proceeding to terminate the parental rights of the child’s natural mother on the ground of permanent neglect. Mangano, J. P., Rubin, Fiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.
# C_2020339EN.01001401.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-38/19) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Non-compliance with cross-compliance rules - Tolerance and leniency in sanctions - Flat-rate financial correction - Assessment of financial damage to the EU - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations)

(2020/C 339/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, P. Barros da Costa, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rechena and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 November 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 298, p. 34).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---
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
 Nat'l Clonal Germplasm Rep - Tree Fruit & Nut Crops & Grapes: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Orders & ServicesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Wine Grape Inventoryheadline bar Main


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
#### In the Matter of Annie Jessup, Petitioner, v Joseph D'Elia, as Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent State Commissioner, dated September 22, 1983 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency denying petitioner’s application on behalf of her minor son for public and medical assistance in the category of Aid to Dependent Children.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner’s application on behalf of her minor son Corey for public assistance in the category of Aid to Dependent Children was denied by the local agency on the basis that petitioner *579owned an automobile valued in excess of $1,500, the statutory resource limit *(see,*42 USC § 602 [a] [7] [B]; 45 CFR 233.20 [a] [3] [i] [B]; 18 NYCRR 352.23 [b] [2]).

At a fair hearing conducted at petitioner’s request to review the determination of the local agency, petitioner did not contest the agency’s determination regarding the value of the car. In addition, evidence was adduced which indicated that (1) petitioner was the registered owner of the car as well as the holder of the certificate of title thereto, and (2) petitioner regularly drove the car and parked it in her building’s parking lot. After the fair hearing, the respondent State Commissioner affirmed the local agency’s determination on the ground that the car was an available resource which could be used for her minor child’s support because "the holder of the Certificate of Title in New York State controls the sale or disposition of the automobile and is the owner thereof’.

In determining the extent of the family’s resources for the purpose of deciding eligibility for a grant of Aid to Dependent Children, only those resources which are "immediately or potentially available” to the applicant shall be considered (18 NYCRR 351.2 [e] [1]; *Matter of Flynn v Bates,*67 AD2d 975).

Moreover, it has been consistently held that there is a rebuttable presumption that true ownership is in the registered owner of a vehicle or the one holding the documents of title *(Young v Seckler,*74 AD2d 155; *Fulater v Palmer’s Granite Garage,*90 AD2d 685, *appeal dismissed*58 NY2d 826). A review of the instant record indicates that petitioner failed to rebut this presumption. Accordingly, the respondent State Commissioner’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and is confirmed. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
# C_2019295EN.01007301.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/73

---

Action brought on 5 July 2019 — Graziani v Parliament

(Case T-460/19)

(2019/C 295/96)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo Alberto Graziani (Fiesole, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# DATES AND TIMES:

Thursday, August 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.; and Friday, August 6, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

# STATUS:

Thursday, August 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.—Closed; Friday, August 6, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.—Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

### Thursday, August 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. (Closed)

1. Strategic Issues.

2. Financial and Operational Matters.

3. Compensation and Personnel Matters.

4. Administrative Items.

### Friday, August 6, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. (Open)

1. Remarks of the Chairman of the Board of Governors.

2. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO.

3. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings.

4. Committee Reports.

5. Quarterly Financial Report.

6. Quarterly Service Performance Report.

7. Approval of Tentative Agendas for November Meetings.

                    A public comment period will begin immediately following the adjournment of the open session on August 6, 2021. During the public comment period, which shall not exceed 30 minutes, members of the public may comment on any item or subject listed on the agenda for the open session above. Registration of speakers at the public comment period is required. Speakers may register online at                     *https://www.surveymonkey.com/​r/​BOG-08-06-2021.*                     Onsite registration will be available until thirty minutes before the meeting starts. No more than three minutes shall be allotted to each speaker. The time allotted to each speaker will be determined after registration closes. Participation in the public comment period is governed by 39 CFR 232.1(n).                

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Michael J. Elston, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.

Michael J. Elston,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-16191 Filed 7-27-21; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the December
31, 1995 Financial Statements included in Form 10-K and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                             177                     191
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      890                     553
<ALLOWANCES>                                       106                      55
<INVENTORY>                                         86                      59
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,143                     965
<PP&E>                                           4,625                   3,363
<DEPRECIATION>                                     646                     481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,692                   5,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,430                     624
<BONDS>                                          3,840                     631
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         2,944                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                         (8)                   3,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,692                   5,012
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,346                   4,760
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,775                   4,468
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (2)                      17
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   132                      69
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 291                     131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    282                     144
<INCOME-TAX>                                       114                      58
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                147                      74
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       147                      74
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.24                     .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.24                     .63
        

</TABLE>
Order issued September24 2012

In The 

## (good of Apprats iffiltif istritt nI Jrxas at Dallas

No. 05-12-00307-CV JOHN C. FLOOD OF DC, INC., JOHN C. FLOOD, INC.,

AND MELVILLE DAVIS, Appellants

V. SUPERMEDIA, L.L.C., Appellee



### ORDER The Court has before it appellants' September 24, 2012 unopposed first motion to extend time for filing reply brief. The motion is GRANTED and the brief tendered by appellants on September 24, 2012 is ORDERED timely filed as of today's date.

OLLY F W CIS JUSTICE