alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16216]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-952-01-1020-BJ]

Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be 
officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land 
Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico, (30) thirty calendar days from the 
date of this publication.

New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico

T. 29 N., R. 5 W., approved April 25, 2001, for Group 980 NM;
T. 26 N., R. 31 E., approved May 7, 2001, for Group 983 NM;
T. Sangre de Cristo Tract within the Sangre de Cristo Grant, 
approved April 25, 2001, for Group 982 NM;

    If a protest against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats 
is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be 
stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be 
officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed 
and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
    A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these 
surveys must file a written protest with the NM State Director, Bureau 
of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
    A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice 
of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be 
filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest 
is filed. The above-listed plats represent dependent resurveys, 
surveys, and subdivisions.
    These plats will be available for inspection in the New Mexico 
State Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New 
Mexico, 87502-0115. Copies may be obtained from this office upon 
payment of $1.10 per sheet.

    Dated: June 8, 2001.
Stephen W. Beyerlein,
Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor for New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 01-16216 Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
```
SONG U. CHON, aka The Korean, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1312.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3767 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3767

 To ensure an evidence-based funding approach to study the effects of 
  health professions opportunity grant demonstration projects, and to 
                  evaluate the demonstration projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 16, 2019

Mr. Schneider introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure an evidence-based funding approach to study the effects of 
  health professions opportunity grant demonstration projects, and to 
                  evaluate the demonstration projects.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Impacts and Outcomes for Health 
Career Training Act''.

SEC. 2. EVIDENCE-BASED FUNDING APPROACH TO STUDY THE EFFECTS OF HEALTH 
              PROFESSIONS OPPORTUNITY GRANT DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS; 
              EVALUATION OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

    Section 2008 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397g) is 
amended by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and 
(e), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
    ``(c) Study.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of 
        the short-, medium-, and long-term impacts of the demonstration 
        projects for which a grant is made under this section, 
        including the employment and earnings of project participants.
            ``(2) Funding.--The Secretary shall use not less than 4 
        percent of total amount made available to carry out this 
        section for each fiscal year for the study required by 
        paragraph (1), evaluations, and associated staffing, for the 
        purpose of supporting the rigorous evaluation of the 
        demonstration projects, and supporting the continued study of 
        the short-, medium-, and long-term effects of the demonstration 
        projects, including the effectiveness of new or added elements 
        of the demonstration projects.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on October 1, 
2019.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          86,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,582,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,339,665
<PP&E>                                         454,893
<DEPRECIATION>                                 279,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,569,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,126,679
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,826
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,438,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,569,953
<SALES>                                     21,564,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,564,649
<CGS>                                       19,506,750
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,506,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,908,516
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                178,658
<INCOME-TAX>                                    75,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            103,658
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,658
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
23.1








Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We have
issued our report dated April 14, 2009, accompanying the consolidated financial
statements included in the Annual Report of NeoGenomics, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2008. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statement of NeoGenomics, Inc. on
Form S-8 (File No. 333-139484) and the Registration Statement of NeoGenomics,
Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-125994).











/s/
Kingery & Crouse,  P.A.





Tampa,
Florida


April 14,
2009
# C_2011355EN.01000602.xml

| 3.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Baden-Baden (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Leo Apelt

(Case C-224/10) (1)

1

(Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of the national driving licence issued by the Member State of residence and issue of a driving licence for vehicles in categories B and D by another Member State - Refusal of recognition by the Member State of residence - Obligation to hold a valid licence for vehicles in category B at the time of issue of the licence for vehicles in category D)

2011/C 355/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Baden-Baden

Party to the national criminal proceedings

Party to the national criminal proceedings

Leo Apelt

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Baden-Baden — Interpretation of Articles 1, 5(1)(a) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) and of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18) — Driving licence for category B issued by a Member State to a national of another Member State before a decision to withdraw the national licence but after the facts which justified that withdrawal — Extension of that licence, by the Member State of issue, to category D after expiry of the period during which no new national licence could be applied for — Possibility for the Member State of residence to refuse to recognise the validity of that licence, basing that refusal on the lack of a valid licence for category B at the time when the licence for category D was issued

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(2), 5(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2000/56/EC of 14 September 2000, do not preclude a host Member State from refusing to recognise a driving licence for vehicles in categories B and D issued by another Member State, first, if the holder of that driving licence was granted the right to drive vehicles in category B in disregard of the normal residence condition and after his driving licence issued by the first Member State had been confiscated by the police authorities in that first Member State but before the right to drive was withdrawn by court order in that first Member State, and, second, if the holder of that driving licence was granted the right to drive vehicles in category D after that withdrawal by court order and after the expiry of the ban on the issue of a new driving licence.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

1

---
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Meeting with Better Markets
  
    



  Discussions concerning the cross-border guidance and exemptive order.
      
  When
              06/12/2013

  Rulemaking(s)
              Cross-Border

  CFTC Staff
              Mark WetjenScott Reinhart Joseph Cisewski

  Visitor(s)
              Dennis Kelleher

  Organization(s)
              Better Markets


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
# Column Definitions

# Reference Contracts

http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/natural-gas/natural-gas-summer-strip-options_contract_specifications.html
# C_2011232EN.01000801.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-10/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Deductibility of gifts to research and teaching institutions - Deductibility limited to gifts to institutions established in national territory)

(2011/C 232/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 56 EC and of Article 40 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) — National rules which make the granting of the tax advantage provided for donations to research and public-education establishments subject to the condition that the beneficiary of the donation is established within the national territory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by authorising the deduction from tax of gifts to research and teaching institutions exclusively where those institutions are established in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by authorising the deduction from tax of gifts to research and teaching institutions exclusively where those institutions are established in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.

---
#### Ex Parte T. G. Peyton.

Habeas Corpus.—Being arrested by a city marshal, by virtue of a *copias pro fine*issued from a mayor’s court, the relator sued out *habeas corpus*before the county court, which dismissed his writ, and he appealed to this court, *296giving recognizance for his appearance in the county court to abide the decision of this court. On motion to dismiss the appeal, *held,*that, unless it was shown that the relator is in the custody of the city marshal, this court has acquired no jurisdiction, and therefore the motion to dismiss is sustained.

Appeal from the County Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. R. H. West.

No brief for the appellant,

*George McCormick,*Assistant Attorney General,

moved to dismiss the appeal, for causes stated in the opinion of the court.

Ector, P. J.

The appellant, as appears from the record, was arrested by W. F. Morton, marshal of Dallas, under a writ of *copias pro fine*issued for the enforcement of a fine adjudged against him by the mayor’s court of said city of Dallas. He sued out a writ of *habeas corpus,*and was carried before the county court of Dallas county, and the county court, on the hearing of the writ of *habeas corpus,*refused to release the appellant from the custody of said marshal. Thereupon the appellant gave notice of appeal to this court, and entered into a recognizance to perfect his appeal.

The assistant attorney general has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, because the recognizance does not state any offense known to the law; and, second, because the record does not show that appellant was in custody.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. This court cannot acquire jurisdiction on appeal on the trial of the writ of *habeas corpus*in this case, unless the appellant is shown to be in the custody of the marshal of the city of Dallas. The appeal is dismissed.

*Dismissed,*
# C_2009244EN.01001401.xml

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/14

---

Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Onidol v Commission

(Case T-313/09)

2009/C 244/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Organisation nationale interprofessionnelle des graines et fruits oléagineux (Onidol) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret et L. Olza Moreno, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final () of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.

| — | The pleas and main arguments put forward by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

The pleas and main arguments put forward by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.

Commission

---
# C_2011089EN.01001601.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2011 — Lan Airlines v OHIM — Air Nostrum (LÍNEAS AÉREAS Del MEDITERRÁNEO LAM)

(Case T-194/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LINEAS AEREAS DEL MEDITERRANEO LAM - Earlier Community word and figurative marks LAN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 89/36

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lan Airlines, SA (Renca, Chile) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, SA (Manises, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2009 (Case R 107/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lan Airlines, SA and Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lan Airlines, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lan Airlines, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                             284
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,113
<ALLOWANCES>                                       498
<INVENTORY>                                        161
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,727
<PP&E>                                           9,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,794)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,618
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,507
<SALES>                                            672
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,246
<CGS>                                              527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   143
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    36
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,023)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        33
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,056)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,056)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not required to be calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>