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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
         COMPANY'S  INCOME  STATEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET DATED MARCH 31, 2000 AND
         IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              359
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       862
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                       3,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5,234
<PP&E>                                              394
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,590
<BONDS>                                           1,035
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         20,722
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5,673
<SALES>                                           3,059
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3,059
<CGS>                                             1,882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1,476
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (320)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (320)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.05)



</TABLE>
United Community Bank v. Wolfe, et al.

289PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 13, 2016

Donald H. Barton, Attorney at Law, Brevard, for Wolfe, Thomas L., et al.

Esther E. Manheimer, Attorney at Law, Robert Ashley Mays, Attorney at Law, Mark A. Pinkston, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for United Community Bank (Georgia).

Clint S. Morse, Attorney at Law, Robert A. Singer, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for North Carolina Bankers Association.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 12th of September 2016 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of September 2016."

*803Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 3rd day of October 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 November 2007 –Commission v Luxembourg**

**(Case C‐34/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/109/EC – Third-country nationals who are long-term residents – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)*

2.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification
– Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 13)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44). |

**Operative part**

| |
| --- |
| The Court: |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Acceleron Pharma Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to his or her knowledge:





(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: August 12, 2014By:/s/ John L. KnopfJohn L. Knopf PhDPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date: August 12, 2014By:/s/ Kevin F. McLaughlinKevin F. McLaughlinChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1413]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 207, Richmond, Virginia

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Capital Region Airport Commission, grantee of Foreign-
Trade Zone 207, submitted an application to the Board for authority to 
expand FTZ 207 to include a site (Site 2 - 221 acres) within the 345-
acre SouthPoint Business Park in Prince George (Prince George County), 
Virginia, within the Richmond Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 14-
2005; filed 3/14/05);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (70 FR 13451, 3/21/05) and the application has been processed 
pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 207 is approved, subject to the Act 
and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and subject to 
the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall zone 
project.
    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of September 2005.

Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-18719 Filed 9-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May

16 , 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00174- CV

IN RE RIG QA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 152nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016-22186



### MEMORANDUM OPINION On March 4, 2019, relator RIG QA International, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( Supp. ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Robert Schaffer , presiding judge of the 152nd District Court of Harris County , to2

vacate his June 11, 2018 order denying relator’s “ Mo tion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens

. ” To obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion . In re Prudential Ins. Co

. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Relator has failed to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion . We the refore deny relator ’s petition for writ of mandamus

.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan, and Poissant.
Exhibit
32.1







CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Linda
Putback-Bean, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Pediatric Prosthetics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Pediatric Prosthetics, Inc.





By:/s/ Linda
Putback-Bean


Linda
Putback-Bean


Chief
Executive Officer





February
19, 2008
Albert C. BURGESS, Jr. v. EBAY, INC., et al.

No. 69P13-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Albert C. Burgess, Jr., for Burgess, Albert C. (Jr.).

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 28th of January 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Orange County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.
# C_2008107EN.01000802.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Nordania Finans A/S, BG Factoring A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-98/07) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 19(2) - Calculation of the deductible proportion - Exclusion of amounts of turnover attributable to the supplies of capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business - Notion of ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ - Vehicles purchased by a leasing company to be leased and subsequently sold on termination of the respective leasing contracts)

(2008/C 107/12)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nordania Finans A/S, BG Factoring A/S

Applicants:

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Calculation of the deductible proportion — Inclusion or not of the amount of the turnover from the sale of vehicles of a vehicle leasing company at the end of the leasing contracts

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be interpreted as meaning that the notion of ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ does not include vehicles which a leasing undertaking purchases with a view, as in the case in the main proceedings, to leasing them and subsequently selling them upon termination of the respective leasing contracts, as the sale of such vehicles at the end of those contracts is an integral part of the usual business activities of that undertaking.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
State v. Avenger Ridgeway

375P09-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Avenger Ridgeway, Pro Se.

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of April 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Moratorium:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Calvin Renard CARTER

No. 193PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016 December 9, 2016.

*687Richard J. Costanza, Attorney at Law, Southern Pines, for Carter, Calvin Renard.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 23rd of May 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of June 2016 by State of NC 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00396

- CR No. 02

- 18

- 00397

- CR No. 02

- 18

- 00398

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 431st District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No s . F17

- 2958

- 431, F17

- 2959

- 431, F17

- 296 0

- 431 Before Birdwell, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel , J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### D ERRICK 

### R ESHORD 

### W ALTON 

### , Appellant V 

### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EX AS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Derrick Reshord Walton filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s verbal denial of his attempts to reduce bail in three pending cases . 1 Altho ugh we informed appellant that we had not received a written order from the trial court

–– a prerequisite to appealability

–– the trial court has not signed one. See State v. Wachtendorf , 475 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss thes e appeals for want of jurisdiction . Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: December 6, 2018

1 Appellant filed both a motion to reduce bail and an application for habeas relief in which he complained that his bail was excessive. See R agston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding that appellate courts do not have jurisdiction of appeal from denial of pretrial motion to reduce bail, only the denial of an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking a bail reduction) .
Gary Dellinger, Virginia Dellinger, and Timothy S. Dellinger, Petitioners v. Lincoln County, Lincoln County Board of Commissioners, and Strata Solar, LLC, Respondents and Timothy P. Mooney, Martha Mclean, and The Sailview Owners Association, Intervenor Respondents

No. 311P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Forrest A. Ferrell, Attorney at Law, Jason White, Attorney at Law, Hickory, for Dellinger, Gary, et al.

Wesley L. Deaton, Attorney at Law, for Lincoln County, et al.

James E. Scarbrough, Attorney at Law, John F. Scarbrough, Attorney at Law, for Mooney, Timothy P., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of August 2016 by Intervenor 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 8th of December 2016."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19105]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1605-DR]


Alabama; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1605-DR), dated August 29, 2005, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective September 18, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Acting Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, 
Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as 
amended, Michael Bolch, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
    This action terminates my appointment of Ron Sherman as Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department 
of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-19105 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
# C_2008079EN.01000502.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Sophiane Gysen v Groupe S-Caisse d'Assurances sociales pour indépendants

(Case C-449/06) (1)

1

(Officials - Remuneration - Staff Regulations - Family allowances - Calculation of the amount of national family allowances - Determination of the ranking of the children - Child giving rise to entitlement to family allowances under the Staff Regulations)

(2008/C 79/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sophiane Gysen

Applicant:

Defendant: Groupe S-Caisse d'Assurances sociales pour indépendants

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation [of Article 67] of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (OJ 1968 L 56, p. 1) — Family allowances — Permissibility of a national family allowance system which excludes, from the calculation of the order of the beneficiary children, children in respect of whom there is entitlement to family allowances under the Staff Regulations — Legal classification of the Staff Regulations of Officials under national law

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2074/83 of 21 July 1983, has general application, is binding in its entirety and is directly applicable in all Member States. In view of the direct applicability of that regulation in the legal systems of the Member States, a child giving rise to entitlement to family allowances under the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities must be treated in the same way as a child giving rise to entitlement to family allowances under national law or an international social security convention in force in the Member State concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
# C_2008107EN.01002602.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/26

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2008 — Base v Commission

(Case T-295/06) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Telecommunications - Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC - Wholesale market for voice call termination on individual mobile networks in Belgium - Significant power on the market - Commission's comments letter - Non-actionable measure - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 107/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Base NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Verheyden, Y. Desmedt and F. Bimont, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, M. Shotter and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 4 August 2006, addressed to the Institut belge des services postaux et des telecommunications (Belgian Institute of Post and Telecommunications Services) containing comments, pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), concerning a draft decision notified by that institute (Case BE/2006/0433).

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of the Commission;

| 3. | orders Mobistar SA and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders Mobistar SA and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---