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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001018752
<NAME> WHISPERING PALMS COUNTRY CLUB JOINT VENTURE
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,980
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,205,546
<ALLOWANCES>                                   205,925
<INVENTORY>                                    300,190
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               829,700
<PP&E>                                      28,125,116
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,806,147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,657,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          518,158
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,195,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,657,832
<SALES>                                      1,746,079
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,931,164
<CGS>                                          730,755
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,801,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                16,041
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,042,325
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,042,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,042,325
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

ELIJAH SHAQUAN DUNCAN, 

Respondent. 

_________________________________ 

Docket Number 2023-0460 

CG Enforcement Activity Number 7811891 

CONSENT ORDER 

Issued: January 12, 2024 

By: Honorable George J. Jordan, Administrative Law Judge 

Appearances: 

LT John Crow 

Sector Virginia 

For The Coast Guard 

Elijah Shaquan Duncan, Pro se

For The Respondent 
2

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

 On December 22, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. 

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

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. 

ORDER 

 Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, 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 January 12, 2024, 

Seattle, Washington 

_______________________________ 

George J. Jordan

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard
# C_2021400EN.01000401.xml

| 4.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 400/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 400/4

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10353 — Graphic Packaging Holding Company/AR Packaging Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 400/04)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Graphic Packaging International Europe Holdings B.V. (USA), belonging to the group headed by Graphic Packaging Holding Company (‘GPK’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Graphic Packaging International Europe Holdings B.V. (USA), belonging to the group headed by Graphic Packaging Holding Company (‘GPK’, USA),

| — | AR Packaging Group AB (‘ARP’, Sweden). |
| --- | --- |

—

AR Packaging Group AB (‘ARP’, Sweden).

GPK acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of ARP.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for GPK: manufacturing and provision of paperboard and sustainable paper-based packaging solutions for a wide variety of customers globally, |
| --- | --- |

—

for GPK: manufacturing and provision of paperboard and sustainable paper-based packaging solutions for a wide variety of customers globally,

| — | for ARP: provision of sustainable fibre-based packaging solutions for the food and consumer goods, beauty and cosmetic, confectionary, food service, tobacco, the pharmaceutical and medical industries globally. |
| --- | --- |

—

for ARP: provision of sustainable fibre-based packaging solutions for the food and consumer goods, beauty and cosmetic, confectionary, food service, tobacco, the pharmaceutical and medical industries globally.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10353 — Graphic Packaging Holding Company/AR Packaging Group

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
#### Denise M. Moll, Appellant, v Dennis P. Epstein et al., Respondents.

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated at Special Term, Gossel, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J. — discovery.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2420 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2420

            To reduce administrative burdens on researchers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2015

  Mr. Barton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To reduce administrative burdens on researchers.

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

SECTION 1. REDUCING ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS OF RESEARCHERS.

    (a) Implementation of Measures To Reduce Administrative Burdens.--
The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall implement 
measures to reduce the administrative burdens of researchers funded by 
the National Institutes of Health, taking into account the 
recommendations, evaluations, and plans researched by the following 
entities:
            (1) The Scientific Management Review Board.
            (2) The National Academy of Sciences.
            (3) The 2007 and 2012 Faculty Burden Survey conducted by 
        The Federal Demonstration Partnership.
            (4) Relevant recommendations from the Research Business 
        Models Working Group.
    (b) Reports.--The Director of the National Institutes of Health 
shall submit to Congress a report on the extent to which the Director 
has implemented measures pursuant to subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
DELIVERY AGREEMENT

In consideration of the delivery of ________________________________, 

U.S. Coast Guard to ________________________________________, at 

____________________________________ for trial upon the charge(s) of 

___________________________________________________________, 

I hereby agree that pursuant to the authority vested in me as 

______________________________ that _________________________, 

______________________, _______________ will be informed of the 

outcome of the trial and that ________________________________will be 

returned to the Coast Guard at __________________________________, 

without expense to the Coast Guard or to __________________________, 

immediately upon final disposition of the case, which includes satisfaction 

of any sentence that may be imposed if convicted, unless the Coast Guard, 

upon notification of such final disposition indicates that return is not 

desired. 

_________________________ _______________________

State Official: Coast Guard Official:

Date: Date:
#### Vincent HUSSEY, Appellant, v. Marvin EVANS, Warden, Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Max Mobley, Deputy/Assistant Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Sangoseni, Dr., Arkansas Department of Correction; Charlotte Green, Infirmary Administrator, Maximum Security Unit, ADC, originally Sued as “C. Green”; Jonathan E. Simmons, Dr., Arkansas Department of Correction, originally sued as “Simmons”; Tommy James, Asst. Warden, Maximum Security Unit, ADC (originally sued as James); Ophelia Grandy, Infirmary Manager, Maximum Security Unit, ADC, originally sued as “O. Grandy”; John Byus, Director of Medical Care, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees.

No. 06-2968.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 13, 2007.

Filed: July 19, 2007.

Vincent Hussey, Brickeys, AR, pro se.

Christine Ann Boozer, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, Michelle Banks Odum, Humphries & Lewis, White Hall, AR, for Appellees.

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Vincent Hussey appeals the district court’s1 orders granting summary judgment to one defendant, and dismissing without prejudice another defendant for failure to serve process; and the district court’s2 subsequent adverse grant of summary judgment to the remaining defendants. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm. *See Johnson v. Blaukat,*453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir.2006) (summary judgment standard of review); *Lee v. Armontrout,*991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (it is in forma pauperis plaintiffs responsibility to provide proper address for service).3

*637Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

. The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

. The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

. We decline to address the allegations Hussey raises for the first time on appeal. *See*
        *637
        *Naucke v. City of Park Hills,*284 F.3d 923, 927 n. 2 (8th Cir.2002).
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2080 

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of 

a hydroelectric project involving Clark Canyon Dam. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2015 

Mr. ZINKE (for himself, Mr. SIMPSON, and Mr. LABRADOR) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of 

construction of a hydroelectric project involving Clark 

Canyon Dam. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A FEDERAL ENERGY 

4 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT IN5 VOLVING CLARK CANYON DAM. 

6 Notwithstanding the time period described in section 

7 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 

8 otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Com9 mission project numbered 12429, the Federal Energy 

10 Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as the 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2080 IH

1 ‘‘Commission’’) shall, at the request of the licensee for the 

2 project, and after reasonable notice and in accordance 

3 with the procedures of the Commission under that section, 

4 reinstate the license and extend the time period during 

5 which the licensee is required to commence construction 

6 of project works for the 3-year period beginning on the 

7 date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
June 4, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KHYATI UNDAVIA, MINU RX LT D, AND MINU GP, LLC , Appellant s

NO. 14

- 15

- 00295

- CV V.

AVANT MEDICAL GRO UP, P.A. D/B/A INTERVENTIONAL SPINE
ASSOCIATES AND BRETT L. GARNER, D/B/A ALLIED MEDICAL
CENTERS , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the interlocutory permissive appeal from the order signed by the court below on March 20, 2015. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal
DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant s , Khyati Undav ia, Minu RX Ltd.

, and Minu GP, LLC.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2021461EN.01000401.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 461/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 461/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10516 – BAIN CAPITAL / ITP AERO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 461/04)

On 8 November 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10516. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10516. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001018740
<NAME> FOOTHILLS HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          14,058
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,364,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                   147,784
<INVENTORY>                                    323,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,070,492
<PP&E>                                      21,652,084
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,767,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,044,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          706,932
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,642,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,044,566
<SALES>                                      1,862,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,418,024
<CGS>                                          909,503
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,038,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                20,188
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,336,595
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,336,595
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,336,595
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
LACK OF RECORDS DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN FAILURE TO DO THE 

ACTS REQUIRED 

Written by: Hearing Office Staff

Inspections often involve the request for records or documentation to 

reflect that an event occurred. But the lack of documentation does 

not always mean that the event did not occur. Take for example, the 

enforcement activity forwarded to the Hearing Office for violation of 

the requirement to conduct facility security exercises once each 

calendar year. The violation is “discovered” during a spring 2007 

inspection and is based upon the facility’s failure to produce, upon 

Coast Guard request, the records documenting the occurrence of the 

exercises. The Hearing Office sends a preliminary assessment letter 

to the party notifying the party of the violation and the amount of 

civil penalty that appears to be warranted. The party responds to the 

Hearing Office and forwards a copy of a letter the facility sent to the 

Coast Guard unit who conducted the inspection, three weeks after 

the inspection occurred. The letter to the unit included copies of 

previous annual exercise records and explained that the records 

were not at the facility at the time of the inspection because they had 

been destroyed by water during Hurricane Katrina. New copies of 

the records were obtained from the facility’s contractor responsible 

for conducting the exercises. 

The Coast Guard unit, assumed to have received the letter and 

records three weeks after the inspection, should have considered the 

records as highly relevant evidence and cleared the violation. If the 

records were insufficient to clear the violation, then the enforcement 

activity should have included the letter and records along with an 

explanation as to why the records were insufficient. In this case, the 

enforcement activity did not include the party’s letter or the records. 

The lesson to be learned is to consider all evidence available before 

identifying a violation. When identifying the violation, be careful to 
focus on what the party did or did not do. The lack of records or 

documentation may simply mean lost paper and the inability to 

present it at the time, and nothing more. The party presented the 

records within three weeks of the inspection. The violation for failure 

to conduct the exercises was in error. The appropriate violation in 

this case would have been for failure to make the records available to 

the Coast Guard upon request.
EXHIBIT 10.23

                             THIRD ADDENDUM TO LEASE

This Third  Addendum  To Lease is made and  entered  into the 28th day of March,
1996,  between Conifer Prince Street Associates  (Landlord) and DSMI Corporation
(Tenant).

WITNESSETH: that Tenant currently leases and occupies approximately 7,224 square
feet of office space at 46 Prince Street,  Rochester, New York 14607 pursuant to
a Lease Agreement; First and Second Addendums To Lease, dated February 22, 1995,
August 18, 1995 and November 17, 1995, respectively.

WHEREAS,  Tenant and Landlord  desire to increase the Base Rent  associated with
the 1,720 square feet leased and occupied by Tenant,  located on the lower level
of the Building as illustrated by Exhibit A-2 of the Second Addendum To Lease.

NOW,  THEREFORE,  it is mutually  agreed  upon by Landlord  and Tenant to modify
certain provisions of the Lease as follows:


1.       Effective April 1, 1996,  Tenant agrees to pay, in addition to its Base
         Rent as stated in the First  Addendum To Lease,  the following  monthly
         Base Rent:

                       Period                        $/Sq.ft.           Monthly 
                  Month-to-Month                                       Base Rent

                  4/1/96-2/28/97                      $12.00           $1,720.00
                  3/1/97-2/28/98                      $12.50           $1,791.67
                  3/1/98-2/28/99                      $13.00           $1,863.33
                  3/1/99-9/30/99                      $13.50           $1,935.00

2.       Landlord  or Tenant may  terminate  this  Second  Addendum  To Lease by
         providing  the  other  with  prior  written  notice  of its  desire  to
         terminate  the  provisions  of  this  Second  Addendum  To  Lease.  The
         effective  date of  termination  will be the last day of the first full
         month following the receipt of said written notice.

Except as modified above, all other terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement,
First and Second  Addendums To Lease,  dated February 22, 1995 , August 18, 1995
and March 23, 1996,  respectively,  shall remain unchanged and in full force and
effect.

Agreed to by:                                      greed to by:
DSMI CORPORATION                           CONIFER PRINCE STREET ASSOCIATES
                                              Home Properties of New York

By:  /s/ Gregory D. Brown                    By:  /s/ Thomas L. Fountain        

Date:  March 28, 1996                        Date:  April 1, 1996