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


<ARTICLE>                     5
                
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                        4,653
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 6,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                   2,066
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             16,046
<PP&E>                                       72,155
<DEPRECIATION>                               28,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               70,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         8,065
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     14,668
<OTHER-SE>                                   16,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 70,322
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             33,735
<CGS>                                         6,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                26,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            1,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               6,559
<INCOME-TAX>                                  2,574
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           3,985
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  3,985
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .74
        


</TABLE>
ohi_10k-ex1018.htm


    Exhibit
10.18

    


     

    Description of Employment Arrangement between Overhill
Farms, Inc. and Richard A. Horvath

    


    Mr. Horvath
receives an annual base salary of $142,686 and an automobile allowance of $600
per month.  The board of directors determines Mr. Horvath’s
discretionary bonus based on performance and his contributions to Overhill
Farms’ success.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1104

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make corrections

in maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1104 ES

1 SECTION 1. CORRECTION TO MAP.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the

3 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior

4 shall make such corrections to the set of maps described

5 in subsection (b) as are necessary to restore on that map

6 the September 30, 1982, boundary for Unit M09 on the

7 portion of Edisto Island located immediately to the south

8 and west of the Jeremy Cay Causeway.

9 (b) MAP DESCRIBED.—The map described is the map

10 included in a set of maps entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Re11 sources System,’’ dated October 24, 1990, that relates to

12 the Unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources Systems enti13 tled ‘‘Edisto Complex M09/M09P’’.

Passed the Senate June 18, 1998.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1104

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make corResources System. rections in maps relating to the Coastal Barrier
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
 National Peanut Research Laboratory: Dawson, GA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Technology
                        Patents & Licenses
                                    Technology Transfer and CRADAs
                                    NPRL SoftwareSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Dawson, Georgia National Peanut Research Laboratory People & Locations







Staci T Ingram
                        National Peanut Research Laboratory

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Lab Technician
                        Phone: (229) 995-7409
                        
                        
                        Fax: (229) 995-7416(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramel Peterson, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 781] —

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered August 30, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because he was told prior to the plea proceeding that the promised prison sentence on the charge of murder in the second degree was 18 years, whereas he received a prison sentence of 20 years to life on that charge, is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Carr,*89 AD3d 1033 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 923 [2012]; *People v Hernandez-Bautista,*89 AD3d 749 [2011]), and, in any event, without merit. The defendant was advised by the County Court at the plea proceeding that the promised prison sentence on the charge of murder in the second degree was capped at 20 years to life, and the defendant, having been so advised, thereafter pleaded guilty to that count. The defendant’s remaining contention as to why his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made is based upon matter dehors the record, which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal *(see People v Moss,*70 AD3d 862 [2010]).

The defendant’s claim that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is based, in *1144part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a “ ‘mixed claim’ ” of ineffective assistance *(People v Maxwell,*89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011], quoting *People v Evans,*16 NY3d 571, 575 n 2 [2011], *cert denied*565 US —, 132 S Ct 325 [2011]). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel *(cf. People v Crump,*53 NY2d 824 [1981]; *People v Brown,*45 NY2d 852 [1978]). Since the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety *(see People v Freeman,*93 AD3d 805 [2012]; *People v Maxwell,*89 AD3d at 1109; *People v Rohlehr,*87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 23 , 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00271

- CR

CARLA NICOLE POTTS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 14

Harris C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1819033



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal, personally signed by appellant, has been filed with this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an opinion, w e grant appellant’s request.
Accordingly, we order the ap peal dismissed. We direct the clerk of the court to issue the mandate of the court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Christopher, and McCally

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1449 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1449

       To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 7, 1997

   Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new item:

      

``    9902.32.38     Benzenesulfonic                                                                            
                      acid, 3- (4,5,-                                                                           
                      dihydro-3-methyl-                                                                         
                      5-oxo-1H-pyrazol-                                                                         
                      1-y1)- (CAS No.                                                                           
                      119-17-5)                                                                                 
                      (provided for in                                                                          
                      subheading                                                                                
                      2933.19.43.00)..  Free              No change        No change        On or before 12/    
                                                                                             31/2000            
                                                                                                              ''

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 223

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV 

No. CR-16-438

GENEVA MARIA LYNNETTE BATES

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

OPINION DELIVERED: APRIL 12, 2017

APPEAL FROM THE JOHNSON

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 

[NO. 36CR-12-64] 

HONORABLE BILL PEARSON, 

JUDGE

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW GRANTED.

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

Geneva Maria Lynette Bates appeals the Johnson County Circuit Court order 

revoking her probation and sentencing her to six years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas 

Department of Correction. Appellate counsel has filed a motion with this court to be 

relieved as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas 

Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2016). The motion is accompanied by a no-merit brief 

containing an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below. The abstract and addendum 

in counsel’s brief include all adverse decisions affecting appellant, and counsel explains in 

the argument portion of his brief why there is nothing in the record that would arguably 

support an appeal. The clerk of this court provided appellant with a copy of counsel’s brief 

and motion and notified appellant of her right to file pro se points for reversal. Appellant 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 223

2 

has not filed pro se points for reversal; thus, the State has not filed a response. We affirm 

appellant’s revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A request to be relieved as counsel on the ground that the appeal is wholly without 

merit shall be accompanied by a brief, including an abstract and addendum. Ark. Sup. Ct. 

R. 4-3(k)(1). The brief shall contain an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings 

adverse to the defendant made by the trial court with an explanation as to why each adverse 

ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Id. In furtherance of the goal of protecting 

constitutional rights, it is the duty of both counsel and this court to perform a full 

examination of the proceedings as a whole to decide if an appeal would be wholly frivolous. 

Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001). 

From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find compliance 

with Rule 4-3(k) and that an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Therefore, we affirm, by 

memorandum opinion, appellant’s revocation. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 

301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. 

 HARRISON and MURPHY, JJ., agree. 

Dusti Standridge, for appellant. 

No response.
#### In the Matter of Helen G., Appellant, v James K.T., Respondent, and Laverne W., Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 482]

Order, Family Court, New York County (George L. Jurow, J.H.O.), entered on or about October 13, 2010, which, after a hearing, denied the petition for grandparent visitation, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a determination of whether it is in the subject child’s best interest to recommence visitation and contact with petitioner.

The Family Court erred in finding that petitioner, the child’s paternal grandmother, who lives in the State of Georgia, does not have standing based on equitable circumstances to seek visitation *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 72 [1]; *Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E.,*78 NY2d 178, 180 [1991]). The record establishes that although petitioner’s relationship with the subject child became sporadic after he turned two years old, when the relationship between the child’s parents deteriorated, petitioner traveled to New York on several occasions over the course of the following seven years and attempted to see the child, but was usually prevented from doing so by respondent mother.

Petitioner eventually filed the instant petition and the parties agreed in court in March 2010 to allow telephone calls and visits in New York. Some telephone contact ensued but when petitioner arrived in New York for a prearranged visit in July, respondent mother refused to allow the visit and cut off communication, alleging that petitioner was consorting with her son, the child’s father, who is also a named respondent, but who does not oppose the instant petition.

The acrimonious nature of the relationship between petitioner *667and respondent is an insufficient basis upon which to determine that visitation is not in the child’s best interest *(see e.g. Matter of E.S. v P.D.,*8 NY3d 150, 157 [2007]; *Matter of Weis v Rivera,*29 AD3d 812, 813 [2006]). Since more than a year has passed since contact was cut off by respondent, a new hearing must be held to determine whether it is in the child’s best interest to recommence visitation and/or contact with petitioner. Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

JOSEPH MATTHEW WAITE Case No.: 6:14−cv−01400−MC

Plaintiff(s),

v. ORDER TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

and service instructions UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

Defendant(s).

/

Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis. An examination of the application reveals that

Plaintiff is unable to afford the costs of this action.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the provisional in forma pauperis status given Plaintiff pursuant to

LR 3−5(d) at the time this action was filed is confirmed. This action may go forward without the

payment of any filing fees or costs associated with service.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT within 30 days of the filing date of this Order, Plaintiff shall:

(1) Prepare an original summons for each defendant and submit it to the Clerk of Court for

issuance;

(2) Provide the original and sufficient service copies of the issued summons, the complaint, and

any scheduling order for service upon each defendant to the Clerk of Court for service; and

(3) Complete the U.S. Marshals Service Form (USM285) for each defendant and submit it to the

Clerk of Court. Summons forms and the USM285 forms may be obtained on request from the Clerk of

Court's Office.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to promptly issue summons in this

case and forward the documents received from Plaintiff for service of process, including the completed

USM285 form(s), to the U. S. Marshals Service.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the U.S. Marshals Service is directed to serve a copy of the

summons and complaint, together with any scheduling order, as provided by Plaintiff, on the defendant

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.

Plaintiff may choose to complete service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 without the aid of the U.S.

Marshals Service. If so, return(s) of service should be filed promptly following completion of service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9th day of September, 2014 /s/Michael J. McShane

Honorable Michael J. McShane

U.S. District Court Judge

Case 6:14-cv-01400-MC Document 5 Filed 09/09/14 Page 1 of 1
# C_2005180EN.01000501.xml

| 22.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 386th meeting on 6 December 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/C.37.533 — Choline chloride

(2005/C 180/05)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fines for Akzo Nobel, BASF and UCB. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fines for Akzo Nobel, BASF and UCB.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the basic amount due to attenuating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the basic amount due to attenuating circumstances.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the fines based on the 1996 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the fines based on the 1996 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

| 7. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---
cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge William Carl Misiewicz Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) I947A 2
II
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 2 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 3 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 4 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 5 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 6 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 7 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 8 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 9 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 10 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 11 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 12 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 13 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 14 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 15 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 16 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 17 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 18 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 19 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 20 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 21 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 22 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 23 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 24 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 25 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 26 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 27 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 28 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 29 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 30 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 31 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 32 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 33 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 34 of 35
Case 3:14-cv-01005-AC Document 239 Filed 02/25/19 Page 35 of 35