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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>                     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996             
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995             
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1             
<CASH>                                             395             
<SECURITIES>                                         0             
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,000             
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0             
<INVENTORY>                                     35,324             
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,301             
<PP&E>                                         183,849             
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,486             
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,190,479             
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          593,783             
<BONDS>                                              0             
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0             
<PREFERRED>                                          0             
<COMMON>                                     3,910,391             
<OTHER-SE>                                    (200,000)             
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,190,479             
<SALES>                                        276,419             
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               276,419             
<CGS>                                           29,636             
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,636             
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,821,300             
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0             
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,393             
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,641,598)             
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600             
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,643,198)             
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0             
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0             
<CHANGES>                                            0             
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,643,198)             
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.73)             
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.73)             
        

</TABLE>
#### LAZARUS et al. v. METROPOLITAN EL. RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1896.)

Action by Sarah Lazarus and others against the Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company.

No opinion. Motion granted; the case to be reargued before the court as constituted on the former argument. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 294.
#### Bruce Friedman, Appellant, v Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Respondent.

Submitted November 27, 2006;

decided February 22, 2007

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that denied class certification, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does *876not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise granted.
MAXIMUM CIVIL PENALTY AMOUNTS 

Written by: Vernon Slape

All enforcement activities are created in MISLE. The creation of an 

Enforcement Summary includes a “charge” page for each violation 

identified. At the top of each “charge” page, the MISLE database will 

populate the fields “Law or Regulation Cite,” “Description,” 

“Statutory Authority,” and "Maximum Penalty.” The data in MISLE 

that populates these fields can be inaccurate due to changes in law 

or regulation. This is especially true with respect to the Maximum 

Penalty. 

The Maximum Penalty allowed for a violation is dependent upon the 

statutory authority for that particular violation. For instance, the 

statutory authority to impose a monetary penalty for violation of the 

requirement to report a marine casualty under 46 CFR 4.05-1 is 46 

USC 6103. A review of this statutory authority indicates that the 

maximum penalty amount allowed is $25,000. However, it is 

important to note that such amounts may be adjusted for inflation. 

33 CFR Part 27, Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for 

Inflation, lists the sections of the United States Code that authorize 

civil monetary penalties for laws administered by the Coast Guard. 

In our example, a review of the penalty table reflects that the 

maximum penalty for violation of 46 CFR 4.05-1 is $27,500; that is 

the statutory maximum of $25,000 adjusted for inflation. 

With respect to 33 USC 1321(b) listed in the penalty table, note that 

some of the entries are followed by the words “Judicial Assessment.” 

The penalty table in this Part reflects civil penalties that may be 

assessed by the Hearing Office and by those in a judicial role such as 

Administrative Law Judges. Depending on the forum, the maximum 

penalties may differ. Penalty amounts associated with the words 
“Judicial Assessment” are maximum penalty amounts that are not 

applicable to enforcement activities sent to the Hearing Office.

Report errors in the MISLE populated fields (maximum penalty, 

statutory authority citations, etc) to HQ MISLE representatives. 

Errors must be corrected manually and for that to occur, the 

representatives must be made aware of the error.
Listen

# Request for Congressional Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2023

April 5, 2022

Report

-  All Reports 
-  Annual Statutory Enforcement 
-  Briefing Reports 
-  Advisory Committees Reports 
-  Budget and Performance 
-  FOIA Reports 
-  Data Inventory Program 
-  Civil Rights Complaints 
-  Historical Publications 
-  Archives
#### The State v. W. Miller et al.

Unless a bail bond recite the offense of which the principal is accused it cannot be the foundation of a judgment of forfeiture. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2732, Note 709.)

The sheriff has no authority to exact a bond of one who voluntarily surrendered himself. He should take the prisoner before an examining court.

Appeal from Goliad. The ease was tried before Hon. Wesley Ogden, one of the district judges.

The question was upon the sufficiency of the hail bond taken by the sheriff and the power of that officer to receive it and return it to the court. The condition of the bond, which was in the penalty of $12,000, read as follows: “ The condition of the above obligation is such, that whereas the-above bound William Miller has surrendered himself into the custody of the sheriff of Goliad, in said state, and is now deprived of his liberty by said officer: How, therefore, if the said William Miller shall he and personally appear before the honorable district court, to be holden within and for the county of Goliad, on the third Monday after the first Monday in August next, then and there to personally remain and be, nor depart therefrom without leave of the court, and remain from term to term and from day to day until legally discharged, to answer any indictment that may be found or preferred by the grand jury of said county upon a charge of the murder of Carlos de la Garza, on the 4th day of March, 1867, in the county of Goliad, then, there, and in that case, this obligation will he null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect.”

*565At the next term of the court an indictment for the murder of de la Garza was preferred against William Miller, and he failing to appear, a regular judgment *nisi*was rendered against Miller and his sureties. But, upon the return of the *scire facias,*the defendants moved to set aside the judgment and quash the hond, because it was not taken by any officer authorized to take it, recited no offense, and was not conditioned, as the law directs. The motion was sustained and the bond quashed, from which judgment the state appealed.

*E. B. Turner, Attorney General,*for the state.

—I. The party voluntarily surrendered; the bond was taken by the sheriff and approved by the justice; and it contained all the requisites required by the statute. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2732.)

H. The defendant voluntarily waived all objections behind the bond,

*J. 8. Givens,*for appellee,

relied upon Barringer v. The State, 27 Tex., 553.

Caldwell, J.

—The appellee, without being charged with any offense, voluntarily surrendered himself to the sheriff, and then executed a bail bond, or what purports to be a bail bond, for his appearance.at the next term of the district court. The pretended bond does not name the offense with which the defendant is accused. It is not “ named in the bond.” Again: the sheriff has no authority to exact a hail bond of one whom he has arrested or who voluntarily surrenders himself. It is his duty to take the accused before some magistrate, that the offense may be inquired into. The judgment of the court below in setting aside the judgment *nisi*is

Affirmed.
#### A. F. ENGLEHARDT CO., Appellant, v. KAUFMAN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 6, 1896.)

Action by the A. F. Englehardt Company against Louis Kaufman and another.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur. See 37 N. Y. Supp. 531, and 39 N. Y. Supp. 31.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

I'S.

PEGGY WEST-STAP

Respondent

Docket Number: 2023-01 l l

Enforcement Activity Number: 7 643906

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On March 30,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case

under 33 C.F.R. S 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is fair

and reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

SO ORDERED.

Done and dated this May 9,2023,

at Baltimore, Maryland

HON. LTNEKA N. QUTJANO

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
^ aoismv-ziAMi

i

KfITH E. HOmEiC

ft

&r

^

5

d

UJ

a

\

4

a,

ai a!

18^

a "S

c3

M"s)

^

n

^

j.

Of

—r1

&

0^

isis^

0

3jQ

^

u

oj

do

CL. «^l

i

i lA

i

^ '

^>A jl "s ^'^6

d ^,'y

M

t

3 4^

^ Hi g«

0

d

I

.3 <3, 5:

J

^3

tfC?
nS

o

• ji'—~

.'^v. ^•:

* «• •

~ I

4^if5^!r— ^-r

-••'? /

'f . . ' .

J t

• - - - . . ' —

f

1

I

' - , 1— • •• • " '

1

1 -- -• •

i

••../ /• ' /. : *'* ' • .j-' -'' • V. f -V

i

j

1

• !••:->!

. !

I I

>; /

.L^.L:i.u
8_N"!ll4-A^ci^

^ Cs^vCvrjiXa^

-4.

• I

S^©![-tt^ M-G _xm Cvo11

. 3016^LO\S^8>4»^ oitiCx?€> Cwci^

S^4otc4£)_^

SlBiEKi' _|H^C

HD-SrooSaJf
;

'

•• ' . _i. '' -^•

-. j " -• •-; •'

1

.! -

1

i

• r . • ^."

-- f

-. j 1

-. - i -

1

f

*•» -"*• /- ^ - I. f,.

;

.' - • * . ' *, . ; N ; •. / •• -. a" •• 'A 1 ! -*: . '. V-'- •

4 ^

- ; , i

!

--

^^ T : ^ y-

- ffr

. L-'

• -=- -

• T - -

i

I

1

1

tr
; »
• -i-S
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUILLERMO AYALA-PEREZ, AKA 

Guillermo Perez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent. 

No. 15-72762 

Agency No. A092-169-546 

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2017**

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Guillermo Ayala-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal 

proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 16 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72762 

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions 

of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny 

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayala-Perez’s motion to 

reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 15 years after his final order of 

removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Ayala-Perez failed to establish the due 

diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. 

Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien 

who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or 

error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such 

circumstances).

Ayala-Perez’s contention that the BIA erred in denying sua sponte reopening 

for lack of due diligence does not raise a legal or constitutional error to invoke our 

jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ayala-Perez’s contentions regarding due 

process violations at his underlying 1999 removal proceedings because this 

petition is not timely as to the IJ’s 1999 decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
# C_2021015EN.01000401.xml

| 14.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/4

---

Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 15/04)

| Member State | Finland |
| --- | --- |
| Routes concerned | Helsinki – Joensuu
  Helsinki – Jyväskylä
  Helsinki – Kajaani
  Helsinki – Kemi
  Helsinki – Kokkola |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 61 days after the day of publication of the present invitation |
| Contract period | 1 April–31 December 2021 |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge | Further information: Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom) |
| Address: |
| PO Box 320 |
| FI-00059 Traficom |
| FINLAND |

Member State

Finland

Routes concerned

Helsinki – Joensuu

Helsinki – Jyväskylä

Helsinki – Kajaani

Helsinki – Kemi

Helsinki – Kokkola

Deadline for submission of tenders

61 days after the day of publication of the present invitation

Contract period

1 April–31 December 2021

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge

Further information: Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom)

Address:

PO Box 320

FI-00059 Traficom

FINLAND

Email: kirjaamo@traficom.fi

Internet: www.traficom.fi/en/transport/aviation/air-public-service-obligations

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

JOE NATHAN WOMACK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 

JOYCE CHILES, et at., 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

NOV 3 02009 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

09 2263 

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be 

dismissed. 

Plaintiff "was indicted and convicted on (2) counts of armed robbery" in the Circuit Court 

of LeFlore County, Mississippi. CompI. at 6 (page numbers designated by the Court); see id., 

Attach. (Indictment). According to plaintiff, the Assistant District Attorney conspired with his 

appointed defense counsel to effect his unlawful incarceration. Id. at 4. He asks this Court "to 

vacate [the] judgement [sic] of conviction and [to] release[] [him] from unconstitutional[] 

confinement." Id. at 6. 

It appears that plaintiff intends to challenge his Mississippi conviction and sentence, and 

such a challenge properly is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This provision directs a federal 

court to "entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody 

pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of 

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Plaintiff may 

1 
bring such an application only "in the district court for the district wherein such person is in 

custody or in the district court for the district within which the States court was held which 

convicted and sentenced him[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (d). Assuming without deciding that plaintiff 

meets all other prerequisites for consideration of his application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the 

Court will dismiss this action without prejudice as it is improperly addressed to this court instead 

of a federal district court in Mississippi. See, e.g., Bates v. Lampton, No. 09-0735,2009 WL 

1073195, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2009) (construing the complaint in part as a request to reduce 

plaintiffs sentence and dismissing it in part on the ground that it should have been brought in 

another federal district court); McLaren v. United States, 2 F. Supp. 2d 48,50 n.3 (D.D.C. 1998) 

(noting that habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be brought in district in which 

prisoners are incarcerated). 

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this 

same date. 

~~,~ 

Date: \ \ \ '2)01 O~ United States District Judge 

2
Exhibit 4.2


 


 


 


 


INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONSCUSIP 126638 10 5THIS CERTIFIES THATis the owner ofFULLY
PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE COMMON SHARES, $0.01 PAR VALUE, OF CVRx, Inc. transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof
in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and
registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by
facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.Dated:SIG TO COME SIG TO COMECHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SECRETARY






     


     


    

 


 


The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face
of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:TEN COM –
as tenants in common UTMA –(Cust)Custodian(Minor)TEN ENT – as tenants by entireties under Uniform Transfers to Minors JT
TEN – as joint tenants with right of survivorship Act and not as tenants in common (State) Additional abbreviations may also be
used though not in the above list.For value received hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING
NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)Shares of the capital stock represented
by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appointAttorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named
Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.DatedX X NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE
NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.SIGNATURE
GUARANTEED ALL GUARANTEES MUST BE MADE BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (SUCH AS A BANK OR BROKER) WHICH IS A PARTICIPANT IN THE SECURITIES
TRANSFER AGENTS MEDALLION PROGRAM (“STAMP”), THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. MEDALLION SIGNATURE PROGRAM (“MSP”),
OR THE STOCK EXCHANGES MEDALLION PROGRAM (“SEMP”) AND MUST NOT BE DATED. GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation of our report, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Entravision Communications Corporation, dated
February 7, 2003, included in this Form 10-K of Univision Communications, Inc., in the previously filed Registration Statements of Univision
Communications, Inc. on Form S-8 File Nos. 333-34559, 333-47017, 333-56794 and Form S-3 File
No. 333-57712.

|                                    |                           
|----------------------------------- | --------------------------
|                                    | /s/MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP
|                                    |                           
|Pasadena, California
March 21, 2003 |                           

---

QuickLinks
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Minnesota Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 12 p.m. and adjourn at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9, 2000, at the Embassy Suites, 425 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 54415. The purpose of the meeting is to review the Committee's report, “Civil Rights Issues Facing Minorities in Moorhead, Minnesota,” and plan future activities. 

Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Alan W. Weinblatt, 612-292-8770, or Constance M. Davis, Director of the Midwestern Regional Office, 312-353-8311 (TDD 312-353-8362). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. 

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, April 7, 2000. 

Lisa M. Kelly, 

Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. 

[FR Doc. 00-9400 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P