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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DIAL
CORPORATION'S FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1996 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                          14,102
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,170
<INVENTORY>                                    139,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               247,781
<PP&E>                                         226,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 866,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          206,674
<BONDS>                                        269,515
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           956
<OTHER-SE>                                     139,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   866,126
<SALES>                                      1,406,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,406,400
<CGS>                                          724,683
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  724,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,423
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,511
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,912
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,912
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
# C_2009081EN.01000101.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5455 — TPV/Philips Branded Monitors)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 81/01

On 26 March 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5455. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5455. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group May 24-25, 2006 

 List of Attachments 

 No. Document(s) Author / Presenter 1 Lee’s Ferry, Long-term Rainbow Trout Monitoring 2006 Trip Report Bill Persons 2 Final Results of Aeolian Sediment-Transport Study and Implications for Future 

Weather Monitoring in the Colorado River Ecosystem PPT Presentation Amy Draut 

3a 3b   

3c  

3d   

3e  

3f   

3g 

Influence of a dam on fine-sediment storage in a canyon river Relative Importance of Eddy versus Channel Sand Storage in Marble Canyon, 1996-2000 PowerPoint Presentation  Comparison of sediment transport and bar response during the 1996 and 2004 BHBF Experiments and PowerPoint Presentation Comparison of sediment transport and bar response results from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon PPT  Regulation of Sand Transport in the Colorado River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multi-year timescales Regulation of Sand Transport in the Colorado River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multi-year times PowerPoint Presentation  High-Resolution Monitoring of suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River using laser-diffraction instruments and a three-frequency acoustic system 

Joe Hazel    David Topping     David Topping     David Topping 

4a 4b 

History of the Long-term Experimental Plan PPT Management Actions and Treatments for the Long-term Experimental Plan 

Dennis Kubly 

5a  

5b 

Description and Summary Evaluation of Two Proposed Experimental Options for the Colorado River Ecosystem during Water Years 2007-2011 Long-term Experimental Plan Proposal PPT 

John Hamill 

6a 6b 6c 6d 6e   

6f  

6g  

6h 

Grand Canyon Native Fishes Update PPT Matt Andersen Matt Andersen Dennis M. Stone Craig P. Paukert  Craig P. Paukert  Lewis G. Coggins, Jr.  Dennis M. Stone  Lewis G. Coggins, Jr.  

Grand Canyon Trust vs. Gale Norton (DOI) Effect of Baiting on Hoop Net Catch Rates of Endangered Humpback Chub Effect of Repeated Hoopnetting and Handling on Bonytail Chub Distribution and Movement of Humpback Chub in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Based on Recaptures Abundance Trends and Status of the Little Colorado River Population of Humpback Chub Ontogenesis of Endangered Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) in the Little Colorado River, Arizona Age-Structured Mark-Recapture Analysis: A Virtual-Population-Analysis-Based Model for Analyzing Age-Structured Capture-Recapture Data  

7  

Evaluation of the Statistical Properties of Mark-recapture Estimators of Grand Canyon Humpback Chub Abundance and Trends 

Dave Otis 

8 Draft Strategic Science Plan John Hamill 9 Draft Monitoring and Research Plan John Hamill 10 Cultural Resource Agreement John Hamill
Amy Baggio, OSB #011920

amy@baggiolaw.com

Baggio Law

621 SW Morrison, Suite 1025

Portland, OR 97205

Tel: (503) 222-9830

Fax: (503) 274-8575

Attorney for Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH O’SHAUGHNESSY,

Defendant.

No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR-03

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION

FOR REVOCATION OF RELEASE

ORDER

The defendant, Joseph O’Shaughnessy, through counsel Amy Baggio, hereby moves the

Court for an Order revoking the Order Setting Conditions of Release entered on February 2, 2016.

(CR-54.) 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL

Undersigned counsel conferred with the government, through Assistant United States

Attorney Craig Gabriel, who consents to this motion. 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE & BASIS FOR REQUEST

Mr. O’Shaughnessy was released to the supervision of United States Pretrial Services on

February 5, 2016. (CR-107.) Because he resides in Arizona, the District of Arizona Pretrial Services

Page 1 DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF RELEASE

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 403 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 2
Office agreed as a courtesy to supervise Mr. O’Shaughnessy. During his time on pretrialrelease, Mr.

O’Shaughnessy remained in full compliance with all conditions of supervision. 

On March 2, 2016, Mr. O’Shaughnessy was indicted in the District of Nevada, case number

2:16-cr-00046. He was arrested the following day in the District of Arizona while checking in with

his United States Pretrial Services Officer. Mr. O’Shaughnessy moved for release in the District

of Arizona on the District of Nevada matter; Pretrial Services recommended his continued release.

Themagistrate judge in Arizona denied the motion forrelease and Mr. O’Shaughnessy has remained

in detention on the Nevada case since his arrest on March 2

nd

. Mr. O’Shaughnessy was transported

from Arizona to Nevada and is currently in custody at CCA Southern District of Nevada. 

On March 22, 2016, the Court entered an Order which directed, among other things, that the

United States Marshal (USM) move Mr. O’Shaughnessy to the District of Oregon from his current

detained location in Nevada. (CR-334 at 6-7.) On April 11, 2016, AUSA Craig Gabriel informed

undersigned counsel that in order to effectuate Mr. O’Shaughnessy’s transport to Oregon by the

USM, a motion for revocation of the District of Oregon release order was necessary. 

Accordingly, in orderto effectuate this Court’s Order of March 22, 2016, as it pertains to Mr.

O’Shaughnessy, counsel hereby moves for revocation of the previously entered release order. As

noted above, the government, through AUSA Gabriel, has no objection to this motion. 

Respectfully submitted on April 13, 2016.

/s/ Amy Baggio

Amy Baggio, OSB #011920

503-222-9830

Attorney for Defendant O’Shaughnessy

Page 2 DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF RELEASE

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 403 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Christopher Pando, Appellant, v Daysi Fernandez, Also Known as Daisy Fernandez, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

*496Almost five years later, the nisi prius court has again denied plaintiff injunctive relief which would restrain defendant from receiving or exercising dominion over the lottery proceeds. However, a review of the pertinent facts at this time leads us to the conclusion that only if the requested relief is granted will any prize money remain to ensure payment to the plaintiff if he is successful. All of the papers submitted demonstrate that there is indeed a likelihood of plaintiffs ultimate success on the merits. In addition, a balancing of the equities clearly compels the granting of injunctive relief. Defendant has already collected more than $1,270,000. If she is paid the sixth lottery installment payment of July 1986 (now held in escrow), she will have been paid over 50% of the total lottery prize, some $2.8 million. It appears, notwithstanding her receipt of these sums, that defendant did not have necessary security to post a bond and that her present assets may be negligible. Under these circumstances, the prize money should not be paid to defendant, but should be disbursed to her attorney to be held in escrow pending the adjudication of this matter. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Asch, JJ.
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 72 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-63505) and Amendment No. 556 to the 1940 Act Registration
      Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2020, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 15, 2020, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity
      Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    May 15, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FLOWERS
INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE FIFTY-TWO WEEKS ENDED
JANUARY 1, 2000, AND THE FLOWERS INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT
JANUARY 1, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          39,382
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  207,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,981
<INVENTORY>                                    280,925
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               690,538
<PP&E>                                       1,670,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                 520,456
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,900,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          655,797
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,040
<OTHER-SE>                                     475,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,900,478
<SALES>                                      4,236,010
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,236,010
<CGS>                                        2,001,956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,052,031
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              80,865
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                103,114
<INCOME-TAX>                                    56,260
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,294
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,294
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50307.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 19, 2007.

Christina M. McCall, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Zandra L. Lopez, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alfredo Martinez appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for importation, possession and intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez contends that the district court judge erred by treating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range as a “presumptive” sentence and failed to consider any of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Additionally, Martinez contends that the district court erred in failing to grant him a “minor participant” downward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).

Martinez’s contentions are without merit. We conclude that the district court properly considered the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and § 3553(a) factors in imposing the sentence. *See United States v. Mix,*457 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we conclude that Martinez’s sentence was reasonable. *See id.*at 914.

We conclude that the district court judge did not err in finding that Martinez was not a “minor participant” due to his role in the drug smuggling operation. *See United States v. Davis,*36 F.3d 1424, 1436-37 (9th Cir.1994).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

LORI J. FALL, CV No.: 3:14-cv-01726-ST 

Plaintiff. 

ORDER FOR EAJA FEES 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 

U.S.C. § 2412, it is hereby ordered that EAJA attorney's fees of$6335.88 shall be awarded to 

Plaintiff pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). 

If it is determined that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed under 

the Depaiiment of the Treasury's Offset Program, then the check for EAJA fees shall be made 

payable to attorney Robyn M. Rebers, based upon Plaintiff's assignment of these amounts to 

Plaintiff's attorney. Any check for EAJA fees shall be mailed to Plaintiff's counsel, Robyn 

Rebers, at P.O. Box 3530, Wilsonville, Oregon 97070. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Presented by: 

Robyn M. Rebers OSB# 034309 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Page 1 

Janice M. Stewart 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Order 3:14-cv-01726-ST 

Case 3:14-cv-01726-ST Document 33 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-16543) pertaining to the Atria Communities, Inc. 1996 Stock
Ownership Incentive Plan; and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-
16545) pertaining to the Atria Communities, Inc. Nonemployee Directors 1996
Stock Incentive Plan, of our report dated February 1, 1997 (except for Note 11,
as to which the date is March 3, 1997) with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Atria Communities, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.


/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Louisville, Kentucky
March 26, 1997
#### PEOPLE ex rel. ILLINGWORTH v. COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 29, 1896.)

Proceeding on the relation of John Illingworth against the court -of oyer and terminer. John R. Fellows, Dist. Atty., for the motion. Burnett & Stayton, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Although the parties have failed to comply with the order made upon the last motion to dismiss the appeal herein, it appearing that it is impossible for them to procure copies of the papers upon which the order appealed from was granted, this motion will be denied, provided the appellant, upon notice to the district attorney, shall apply to Mr. Justice Barrett for a statement of the facts appearing before him and the questions of law involved. The appeal will then be heard upon such statement, the ease to be ready for argument at the October term. Motion denied. See 36 N. Y. Supp. 1131, and 38 N. Y. Supp. 1148.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ELDER LABRANCHE, GUERLYNE LABRANCHE and

DOONDY LABRANCHE,

Appellants,

v.

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC

Appellee.

No. 4D19-223

[December 5, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE14-

001071(11).

Mark H. Klein of MHK Legal PLLC, Coral Springs, for appellants.

Nancy M. Wallace of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee; William P. Heller of 

Akerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale; and Eric M. Levine of Akerman LLP, West 

Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# L_2009124EN.01006301.xml

| 20.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 124/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 124/63

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 May 2009

establishing the position to be adopted, on behalf of the Community, within the International Grains Council as regards the extension of the Grains Trade Convention 1995

(2009/393/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Grains Trade Convention 1995 was concluded by the Community by Council Decision 96/88/EC (1) and was regularly extended for further periods of two-year. It was last extended by decision of the International Grains Council in June 2007 and remains into force until 30 June 2009. A further extension is in the interest of the Community. The Commission, which represents the Community in the Grains Trade Convention, should therefore be authorised to vote in favour of such extension, |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Grains Trade Convention 1995 was concluded by the Community by Council Decision 96/88/EC (1) and was regularly extended for further periods of two-year. It was last extended by decision of the International Grains Council in June 2007 and remains into force until 30 June 2009. A further extension is in the interest of the Community. The Commission, which represents the Community in the Grains Trade Convention, should therefore be authorised to vote in favour of such extension,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The European Community's position within the International Grains Council shall be to vote in favour of the extension of the Grains Trade Convention 1995 for a further period of up to two years.

The Commission is hereby authorised to express this position within the International Grains Council.

Done at Brussels, 18 May 2009.

For the Council

The President

J. KOHOUT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 21, 27.1.1996, p. 47.

1

---