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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,282
<PP&E>                                          34,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,113
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,550
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,177
<SALES>                                         19,370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,370
<CGS>                                           15,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,973
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    15
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    335
<INCOME-TAX>                                       121
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                214
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       214
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 15.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-151194 on Form F-3 of our reports dated
July 15, 2009, relating to the financial statements of National Bank of Greece S.A. and subsidiaries (the "Group") (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph regarding the translation of the Euro amounts into U.S. dollar amounts), and the effectiveness of the Group's internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 20-F of the Group for the year ended December 31, 2008.

/s/    Deloitte.
Hadjipavlou, Sofianos, & Cambanis S.A.
Athens, Greece
July 15, 2009

---



QuickLinks
#### Loyd Beall, plaintiff in error, *vs.*William Bailey, defendant in error.

When an affidavit of illegality, with the usual bond, is delivered to the sheriff, it is returnable to the next regular term of the Court from which the execution issued, and not to an adjourned session of the *same*term.

If the sheriff makes his return to such adjourned session, and the Clerk enter the case on the docket, it is error in the Court to call the case up, and dismiss it at that term.

Illegality. Practice. Before Judge Harvey. Floyd Superior Court. June Adjourned Term, 1871.

Bailey’s *fi. fa.*against Beall, ordered the sheriff to make the money, and return the writ to January Term, 1871, of said Court. It was levied in February, 1871. In March, 1871, Beall lodged with the sheriff an oath of illegality to stop the sale. The sheriff returned the papers to the Clerk’s office, and he entered the illegality upon the docket. January Term was adjourned till June, 1871, and then this case was called. Beall’s counsel objected that it was properly returnable to July Term, 1871, and could not yet be called. The Court overruled the objection and heard and dismissed the illegality. That is assigned as error.

Alexander *&*Wright, for plaintiff in error.

Underwood & Rowell, for defendant

McCay, Judge.

The Revised Code, section 3613, is positive and precise that the officer shall return the affidavit and bond to the *next term*of the Court from which the execution issued, and it shall be the duty of the Court, at the *first term thereof,*to determine the same. The plaintiff in this case is well satisfied that the affidavit is very lame and was only interposed for delay. Suppose it is. That does not make it returnable to a different term. It is important that the rule be kept uni*301form. The return of the papers is the only notice either gets of the pendancy of the illegality, and it is important, both to the plaintiff and defendant, that each party shall know when the case is to be heard. The case of *Brown & Wright vs. Smith & Leonard,*24 Georgia Reports, 418, is precisely in point. There the *certiorari*was frivolous. But this Court overruled the Judge in taking it up at a term too soon. The statute is positive and must be obeyed. Judgment reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 201 (Thursday, October 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 59113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5168]


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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

October 2, 2007.

Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, October 11, 2007.

Place: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered: The Commission will consider and act upon the 
following in open session: Secretary of Labor v. The American Coal 
Company, Docket Nos. LAKE 2005-129 and LAKE 2006-28. (Issues include 
whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that the 
operator violated the escapeway requirements of 30 CFR 75.380(a).)
    Any person attending this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

Contact Person for More Info: Jean Ellen, (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 
for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 07-5168 Filed 10-16-07; 12:37 pm]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
#### STATE v. GRESHAM

No. 104 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 730.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 3 May 1976.
EXHIBIT 15.5
 
 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPHays Galleria1 Hays LaneLondon SE1 2RDTelephone +44 (0) 20 7583 5000Facsimile +44 (0) 20 7804 1001www.pwc.com/uk
 Report of Independent Accountants
     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
14 July 2008  -33-




---



##### 



Appendix A
 The Directors
    
    Gracechurch Card Notes 2006-A PLCBarclays Bank PLC
    
    54 Lombard StreetBarclaycard
    
    London1234 Pavilion Drive
    
    EC3P 3AHNorthamptonNN4 7SGThe Directors
    
    The DirectorsGracechurch Card Funding (No. 3) PLC
    
    Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 8) PLC54 Lombard Street
    
    54 Lombard StreetLondon
    
    LondonEC3P 3AH
    
    EC3P 3AHThe Directors
    
    The DirectorsGracechurch Card Funding (No. 9) PLC
    
    Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 10) PLC54 Lombard Street
    
    54 Lombard StreetLondon
    
    LondonEC3P 3AH
    
    EC3P 3AHThe Directors
    
    The DirectorsGracechurch Card Funding (No. 11) PLC
    
    Barclaycard Funding PLC54 Lombard Street
    
    54 Lombard StreetLondon
    
    LondonEC3P 3AH
    
    EC3P 3AHThe DirectorsGracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited26 New StreetSt. HelierJerseyJE2 3RA
 -34-




---



##### 



Appendix B
 Managements Assertion Concerning Compliance
with requirements set forth in the Beneficiaries Servicing Agreement between
 Barclaycard Funding PLC and Barclays Bank PLC dated 23 November 1999 (BSA).
 14 July 2008
     Timothy George JungFinancial Controller/s/ Timothy George Jung End of Filing
 -35-
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 7, 2021

No. 04-21-00171-CV

Leticia RODRIGUEZ 

Cross-Appellee/Appellant

v.

Lydia RODRIGUEZ and Robert Pereida 

Cross-Appellants/Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI19456

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On June 3, 2021, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record, notifying this 

court that the clerk’s record has not been filed because appellant has failed to pay or make 

arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record based on the recalculated, corrected 

costs. 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant Leticia Rodriguez provide proof to this court 

within ten (10) days of the date of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or 

arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without 

paying the clerk’s fee. 

It is further ORDERED that the clerk’s record must be filed no later than ten (10) days 

after the date appellant’s written proofs are filed with this court. If appellant fails to respond 

within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 37.3(b). 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of June, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,411
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 205,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,764
<BONDS>                                         89,402
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         83
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                   (106,671)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   205,049
<SALES>                                        184,363
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               184,363
<CGS>                                          166,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  173,679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,667
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   150
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,342
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,325)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       141
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,466)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,466)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.87)


</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT D. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv68-RH/WCS

THE CHRONICLE et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 14. No objections have been filed. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The complaint is dismissed

without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on January 4, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.2
 BARCLAYCARD FUNDING PLC
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on
Form 6-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Barclaycard Funding PLC;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required
under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement.
 By: /s/ Paul Gerard TurnerName:
    
    Paul Gerard TurnerTitle:
    
    DirectorDate:
    
    June 23, 2006
 - 27 -
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 11-2 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 11-2 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 11-2 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 11-2 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 11-2 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 11-2 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 11-2 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 11-2 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 8 of 8
#### STATE v. WARD

No. 250 PC.

Case below: 41 N.C. App. 768.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 August 1979.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RICHARD MICHAEL FERRARI,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv34/MCR/MD

OKALOOSA COUNTY JAIL, 

Defendant.

O R D E R

This cause is before the court upon plaintiff filing a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has neither paid the $350.00 filing fee nor applied for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s case cannot proceed until he either pays the

filing fee or files a complete application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. A complete

application includes a motion with supporting affidavit, a prisoner consent form and a

financial certificate with account attachments (a printout of the transactions in plaintiff’s

inmate trust account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the

complaint). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk is directed to send plaintiff a form application for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. This case number shall be written on the form.

2. Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall either

pay the $350.00 filing fee in full, or file a complete application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the court. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 12 day of February, 2010.

th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
#### STATE v. LITTLE

No. 89 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 729.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 April 1976.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DAVID EUGENE GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-65-RS-GRJ

J.T. WITALEC and D. SEARCY,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51). 

No objections have been filed.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is 

approved and incorporated in this Order.

2. The case is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on February 23, 2012.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-00065-RS-GRJ Document 52 Filed 02/23/12 Page 1 of 1
#### Mary A. Redwine, administratrix, plaintiff in error, *vs.*W. D. Hancock *et al.,*defendants in error.

In a suit by an administratrix on a debt contracted before June, 1865, where it is made to appear that there are no debts, and that the persons entitled to the estate are a widow and minor children, the case is within section fourteen of the Act of October 13, 1810, and no proof of payment of taxes is required.

Relief Act of 1870. Tax. Widows. Minors. Tried before Judge Parrott. Whitfield Superior Court. April Term, 1871.

Mrs. Red wine, as administratrix of her husband, filed a bill to collect a note due to her husband, and made prior to June, 1865, by Hancock *et al.,*and to enforce a vendor’s lien for its amount. She filed no affidavit as to the payment of taxes, and for want of it defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss the cause. Her counsel proposed to prove that the estate owed nothing, and that the whole of the debt belonged exclusively to her and her children, and that she was a widow and they were minors, and contended that thus they would bring the case within that class to which said Act was, by its terms not to apply. Section fourteen of said Act is: “nothing in this Act shall be so construed as to effect any claim due any widow or minor contracted prior to June 1st, 1865,” etc. The Court dismissed the cause, and that is assigned as error.

W. K. Moore, for plaintiff in error.

McCutchen *&*Shumate, for defendants.

McCay, Judge.

The administratrix holds this debt as trustee for the widow and children. They are the true equitable owners of it and nobody else. It can rarely, if ever, happen that a minor is the legal owner of a debt. Almost invariably some person has it in trust for the minor’s use, and if the exception in the *365Act of 1870, is only to apply to cases where the minor is the legal owner it might as well not have been there. We have given this Act a liberal construction. It puts a new duty upon suitors, unknown previously, and it ought not to be extended beyond its legitimate scope. We think, too, the exceptions ought to be liberally construed. This note belonging, as the proof shows, equitably to a widow and minor children, it comes within one of the exceptions expressly provided for in the Act of October 13th, 1870. We think, therefore, the judgment was wrong.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SHERRIE RUSSELL-BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:09cv257-MP-GRJ

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA,

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Withdraw

Reference, filed May 4, 2012. (Doc. 285). Plaintiff requests the court to withdraw its prior

referral of plaintiff’s motion to dismiss to Magistrate Judge Jones for issuance of a report

and recommendation. (See doc. 259).

Magistrate Judge Jones has completed the referenced review of plaintiff’s motion

to dismiss and issued a Report and Recommendation dated March 21, 2012. (Doc. 274). 

The court has twice granted plaintiff requests for extension of time to file written objections,

which are now due May 7, 2012. The court shall make a de novo determination of those 1

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

objection is made.

In the instant motion, plaintiff takes issue with suggested “factual inaccuracies”

contained in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s concerns

regarding the factual content of the Report and Recommendation may be presented to the

court in the form of written objections as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff has

presented no extraordinary circumstances to support a request to vacate the court’s prior

The request for extension also provided for additional time to file responses to opposing party’s

1

written objections, which the court approved. (See doc. 278).

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP-GRJ Document 286 Filed 05/04/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

referral. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4). Accordingly, plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Withdraw

Reference (doc. 285) is DENIED. Plaintiff is further advised that no additional extension

of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation shall be given.

DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of May, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 1:09cv257-MP-GRJ

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP-GRJ Document 286 Filed 05/04/12 Page 2 of 2