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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-26-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-26-2000
<CASH>                                           3,120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,702
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (269)
<INVENTORY>                                     42,787
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,695
<PP&E>                                         104,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                (52,575)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 184,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,072
<BONDS>                                        170,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   184,863
<SALES>                                        251,314
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               251,314
<CGS>                                           95,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  152,828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,218)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       130
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,348)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN RE A.C.

No. COA08-222.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Martin (05JB63).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part; vacated in part; and remanded.
IN RE S.A.J.

No. COA07-452.

Court of appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 18, 2007.

Certification Date October 8, 2007.

Appeal from Gaston (06JA56).

Case reported without published opinion affirmed.
hifr-ex101_142.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

FIRST AMENDMENT

to Tenth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement

(McAllen Lease)

June 20, 2016

 

This First Amendment to the Tenth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement (the “First Amendment”) between Sharyland Distribution and Transmission Services, L.L.C. (“Lessor”) and Sharyland Utilities, L.P. (“Lessee”) is executed and delivered on June 20, 2016 and is effective as of June 13, 2016.  Capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined will have the meanings assigned to such terms in the McAllen Lease (as defined below).

 

WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee are Parties to a Third Amended and Restated Lease Agreement (McAllen System) dated as of December 1, 2014 (as amended from time to time in accordance with its terms, the “McAllen Lease”);

 

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2016, the Parties executed the Tenth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement (McAllen Lease) effective as of January 1, 2016 (the “Tenth Amended Supplement”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to amend the Tenth Amended Supplement as set forth herein.

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree to the following:

 

1.Amendment.  The table titled “ERCOT Transmission Rate Allocation” is hereby amended by deleting the table in its entirety and replacing the same with the following:

 

ERCOT Transmission Rate


	
Allocation:
	
before June 20, 2013:  100%

	
 
	
between June 20 and October 17, 2013:  27.8%

	
 
	
between October 17, 2013 and February 25, 2014:  11.8%

	
 
	
between February 25, 2014 and May 1, 2014:  8.2%

	
 
	
between May 1, 2014 and October 3, 2014:  8.6%

	
 
	
between October 3, 2014 and March 31, 2015:  12.0%

	
 
	
between April 1, 2015 and October 31, 2015:  11.9%

	
 
	
between November 1, 2015 and June 13, 2016:  10.6%

	
 
	
between June 13, 2016 and October 1, 2016:  9.8%

	
 
	
starting October 1, 2016:  8.2%




 

2.Continuing Effect.  Except as expressly amended by this First Amendment, the provisions of each of the McAllen Lease and the Tenth Amended Supplement are and shall remain in full force and effect.  

 

[Signatures on Following Page]

 




McAllen Lease

 



The Parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date set forth above.

 

 


	
 
	
SHARYLAND UTILITIES, L.P.




 


	
 
	
By:/s/ Greg Wilks

	
 
	
Name:Greg Wilks

	
 
	
Title:Chief Financial Officer




 

 


	
 
	
SHARYLAND DISTRIBUTION &

	
 
	
TRANSMISSION SERVICES, L.L.C.




 


	
 
	
By:/s/ Brant Meleski

	
 
	
Name:Brant Meleski

	
 
	
Title:Chief Financial Officer




 

McAllen Lease
SUGAR CREEK CHARTER SCHOOL, INC., Kennedy Charter School, Crossroads Charter School, Carolina International School, and Metrolina Regional Scholars Academy v. The CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION and Peter C. Gorman, Superintendent in his Official Capacity, d/b/a "Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools".

No. 116P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

James G. Middlebrooks, Charlotte, Justin D. Howard, Raleigh, Jill R. Wilson, Robert J.

*461King, III, Elizabeth V. LaFollette, Greensboro, for Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, et al.

Richard A. Vinroot, Charlotte, for Charter Schools.

Ann L. Majestic, Lisa Lukasik, Raleigh, Allison B. Schafer, for School Boards Assoc.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 655 S.E.2d 850.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of March 2008 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7603

JASON T. SCOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN J. T. SHARTLE, named as FCC Warden; SUSAN MCCLINTOCK, 

named as USP Warden, Tucson, AZ; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. 

(8:16-cv-00364-TDC)

Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: Janaury 20, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason T. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jason T. Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without 

prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) 

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3633 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require country 

of origin labeling on prescription and over-the-counter drugs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mr. BROWN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

require country of origin labeling on prescription and 

over-the-counter drugs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparency in Drug 

5 Labeling Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING FOR DRUGS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 502 of the Federal Food, 

8 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352) is amended by 

9 adding at the end the following: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 3633 IS

1 ‘‘(aa)(1) If it is a drug subject to section 503(b)(1) 

2 in final dosage form, unless the labeling of such drug 

3 bears the following 2 separate lists: 

4 ‘‘(A) The identity of the country of manufac5 ture of each active ingredient of the drug, listed in 

6 descending order based on the percentage of the 

7 number of active ingredients in the final dosage 

8 form manufactured in such countries. 

9 ‘‘(B) The identity of the country of manufac10 ture of each inactive ingredient of the drug, listed in 

11 descending order based on the percentage of the 

12 number of inactive ingredients in the final dosage 

13 form manufactured in such countries. 

14 ‘‘(2) If it is a nonprescription drug (as defined in sec15 tion 760), unless the label of such drug bears the following 

16 2 separate lists: 

17 ‘‘(A) The identity of the country of manufac18 ture of each active ingredient of the drug, listed in 

19 descending order based on the percentage of the 

20 number of active ingredients in such drug manufac21 tured in such countries. 

22 ‘‘(B) The identity of the country of manufac23 ture of each inactive ingredient of the drug, listed in 

24 descending order based on the percentage of the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•S 3633 IS

1 number of inactive ingredients in such drug manu2 factured in such countries.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 180 

5 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
NO T F O R P UB LICATIO N IN W EST' S HAWAI # I REP O RTS AND P ACIF IC REP O RTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000710
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLAY MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CR. NO. 1CPC-18-0001102)

O RDER APPROVING THE NOVEMBER 12, 2021 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.) Upon consideration of the Stipulation for Dismissal of Appeal, filed November 12, 2021, and executed by counsel for Defendant-Appellant Clay Marshall ( Marshall ) and the State of Hawai # i, the papers in support, and the record, it appears that:

(1) the appeal has been docketed; (2) Marshall seeks to dismiss the appeal; (3) the motion includes Marshall's declaration showing he understands the consequences of voluntary dismissal, consistent with Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 42(c); and (4) dismissal is authorized by HRAP Rule 42(b) and (c). Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000710 22-NOV-2021 07:47 AM Dkt. 85 OAWSTNO T F O R P UB LICATIO N IN W EST' S HAWAI # I REP O RTS AND P ACIF IC REP O RTER
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation to dismiss the appeal is approved, and the appeal is dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 22, 2021. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge

2
IN RE J.A.

No. COA08-486.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 16, 2008.

Certification Date October 6, 2008.

Appeal from Macon (05JA10, 05JA75, 05JA76).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
BEAUFORT BOE v. BEAUFORT BD. OF COMM.

No. 106PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 3, 2008.

Garris Neil Yarborough, Fayetteville, Jonathan V. Maxwell, Greensboro, for Beaufort Co. Commissioners.

*670Brian C. Shaw, Richard Schwartz, Raleigh, for Beaufort Co. BOE.

James B. Blackburn, III, for NC Asso. of Co. Commissioners.

Curtis H. Allen, III, for NCSBA.

Allison B. Schafer, General Counsel, for NCSBA.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of May 2008 by NCSBA for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of June 2008."
# C_2023179EN.01006401.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/64

---

Action brought on 23 March 2023 — Colombani v EEAS

(Case T-158/23)

(2023/C 179/89)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean Marc Colombani (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the applicant’s 2021 annual performance appraisal report of 13 July 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicant’s 2021 annual performance appraisal report of 13 July 2022;

| — | in so far as necessary, in that it supplements the performance appraisal report, annul the decision of 20 December 2022 of the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission rejecting the complaint R/394/2022 lodged by the applicant on 19 August 2022 against his 2021 performance appraisal report; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, in that it supplements the performance appraisal report, annul the decision of 20 December 2022 of the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission rejecting the complaint R/394/2022 lodged by the applicant on 19 August 2022 against his 2021 performance appraisal report;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the rules applicable to the appraisal procedure, infringement of Articles 11a, 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, misuse of powers and infringement of the objectivity and the impartiality that must be attached to the appraisal procedures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the rules applicable to the appraisal procedure, infringement of Articles 11a, 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, misuse of powers and infringement of the objectivity and the impartiality that must be attached to the appraisal procedures;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers.

---
STATE v. McDOUGALD.

No. COA07-993.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 20, 2008.

Certification Date June 9, 2008.

Appeal from Harnett (01CRS920, 01CRS4612).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          31,452
<SECURITIES>                                    21,726
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,754
<ALLOWANCES>                                       172
<INVENTORY>                                        630
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,762
<PP&E>                                           9,404
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,425
<BONDS>                                            272
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,384
<SALES>                                         49,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,279
<CGS>                                           14,353
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,317
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  55
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,141
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,730
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,411
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,411
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary information extracted from the quarterly report on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,979
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,016
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      8,590
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        162,185
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 188,027
<DEPOSITS>                                     126,432
<SHORT-TERM>                                    43,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                814
<LONG-TERM>                                        213
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,057
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 170,959
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,334
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  164
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    43
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,541
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,376
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,003
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,539
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       24
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    588
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         588
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.56
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,522
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,148
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,715
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,740
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,740
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Francisco Eriza HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Harco National Insurance Co., Surety v. Harnett County Board of Education, Respondent.

No. 157P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Duncan B. McCormick, Lillington, for Harnett County Bd. of Ed.

*542Kenneth P. Andresen, Charlotte, for Harco National Ins. Co.

Peter Strickland, Assistant District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th day of March 2006 by Respondents in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
DEPT. OF CORRECTION v. MEDICAL BOARD.

No. 51PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 29, 2008.

Thomas J. Pitman, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joseph Finarelli, Assistant Attorney General, for Dept. of Correction, et al.

Brian L. Blankenship, D. Todd Brosius, for Medical Board.

Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Wallace C. Hollowell, III, Raleigh, for American Medical Asso.

Timothy C. Miller, J.D., Senior Director, for FSMB.

Sarah L. Buthe, Raleigh, Carl J. Chiappa, New York, NY, Logan M. Breed, Washington, DC, Aaron C. Mahler, for Physicians for Human Rights.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th day of July 2008 by Defendant to Withdraw Motion for Extension of Time:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of July 2008."
STATE v. Eugene Tyrone DeCASTRO.

No. 221A93-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 22, 2007.

Barry McNeill, Special Deputy Attorney General, Susan Doyle, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the second motion filed on the 17th day of August 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (DeCastro) shall have up to and including the 20th day of September 2007 to file and serve his/her Petition for Writ of Certiorari with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of August 2007."