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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FRESH
CHOICE, INC.'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q/A FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 21, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT ON FORM 10-Q/A.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-21-1999
<CASH>                                           2,123
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      127
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,275
<PP&E>                                          44,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                (16,244)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,996
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,175
<COMMON>                                        42,221
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27,862)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,795
<SALES>                                         16,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,791
<CGS>                                            4,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (353)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (70)
<NET-INCOME>                                     (423)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-73,608]

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on September 1, 2010, applicable to workers of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), Internal Firm Services (“IFS”) Group, Charlotte, North Carolina. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 21, 2010 (75 FR 57515).                

At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The IFS workers supply professional services and public accounting services.

New information shows that the Department did not correctly state the subject firm name in its entirety on the certification decision. The correct name of the subject firm should read PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), Internal Firm Services Client Account Administrators Group.

Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to correct the name of the subject firm to read PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), Internal Firm Services Client Account Administrators Group.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-73,608 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), Internal Firm Services Client Account Administrator Group, Charlotte, North Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 26, 2009, through September 1, 2012, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of October 2010.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-27386 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL SALVADOR CISNEROSPONCE, a.k.a. Manuel Salvador Cisneros,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-71927

Agency No. A200-877-402

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 14, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Manuel Salvador Cisneros-Ponce, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from

an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding

of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

OCT 20 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual

findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we

deny the petition for review.

Cisneros-Ponce does not claim to have suffered past persecution. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Cisneros-Ponce did not

establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d

1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of persecution was “too speculative”). 

Thus, Cisneros-Ponce’s asylum claim fails.

Because Cisneros-Ponce failed to meet the lower burden of proof for

asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of

removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Cisneros-Ponce failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be

tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Silaya v.

Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 11-71927
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov SP-2010-03-051-KSC

The mission:

NASA’s STS-131 mission aboard space shut

Discovery will carry the multi-purpose logistics module 

Leonardo and an ammonia tank assembly to the International

Space Statio

During the 13-day flight, mission specialists will perform three 

spacewalks to switch out a rate gyro assembly on the station’s S0

truss, replace an ammonia tank assembly and retrieve a Japanese 

experiment from the station’s exterior. 

Crew members also will transfer science, supply and utilization racks from 

Leonardo to the station and retrieve used supplies and equipment for return to Earth.

STS-131 is Discovery’s 38th flight, the 131st shuttle mission and the 33rd shuttle flight to the space statio

The crew

Commander Alan Poindexter will lead the seven-member crew on his second spaceflight. 

James P. Dutton Jr. will serve as pilot on his first spaceflight. Mission specialists are Rick Mastracchi

Clayton Anderson, Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger, Stephanie Wilson and Naoko Yamazaki of the Ja

Aerospace Exploration Agency
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gilbert Loo, Appellant.

[789 NYS2d 247]

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County (LaPera, J.), both rendered March 27, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglary tools under indictment No. 906/00, and burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 1963/00, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing (Honorof, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant was convicted, inter alia, of two burglaries which occurred in the pre-dawn hours in two houses located near each other. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt are not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the showup identification, which occurred within four blocks of a burglary of one of the complainant’s homes, within an hour of that burglary, and within minutes of the defendant’s arrest, was not unduly suggestive even though the defendant was handcuffed and in the presence of uniformed officers *(see People v Duuvon,*77 NY2d 541, 545 [1991]; *People v Russo,*271 AD2d 554 [2000]; *cf. People*
      *717
      *v Ortiz,*90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997]; *People v Riley,*70 NY2d 523, 530 [1987]).

The sentences imposed were not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Crane, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 3.7




            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                       P.D.C. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
                       ----------------------------------
                              a Nevada corporation


         The undersigned, Sandra Sowers, President of P.D.C. Innovative
Industries, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify
as follows:

         1.       Ms. Sowers is the President of the Corporation.

         2.       The Corporation's name is:  P.D.C. Innovative Industries, Inc.

         3. By resolutions adopted at a special meeting of the Board of
Directors of this Corporation held on January 8, 1999, the Board resolved to
effect a reverse stock split of the Corporation's issued and outstanding common
stock by which every 40 shares of issued and outstanding common stock before the
split would become one (1) share of issued and outstanding stock after the
split.

         4. By reason of an action of stockholders taken by written consent on
January 8, 1999, the holders of a majority of the then-issued and outstanding
shares of the common stock of this Corporation approved the reverse stock split
described above.

         5. As a result of the actions of the Board of Directors of this
Corporation and the written consent of the holders of a majority of the shares
of the issued and outstanding common stock of this Corporation, the Articles of
Incorporation of this Corporation shall be deemed to be amended on that date to
provide that each 40 shares of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock
before the split shall, as a result of the reverse stock split, become one (1)
issued and outstanding share of common stock of the Corporation after the split.

         Dated this 12th day of April, 2002.


                                                 /s/ Sandra Sowers
                                                 -------------------------
                                                 Sandra Sowers
                                                 President
(January 31, 2005)

#### Olga Arguinzoni, Appellant, v Parkway Hospital et al., Respondents.

[789 NYS2d 317]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated January 5, 2004, which denied her motion for leave to serve an “amended supplemental” bill of particulars as to each defendant, and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated July 9, 2004, as, upon granting the motion of the defendant Association of University Physicians to clarify the order dated January 5, 2004, and an order of the same court dated August 8, 2003, amended the order dated August 8, 2003, by, in effect, deleting the provision thereof denying those branches of the defendants’ motions which were to strike the plaintiff’s expert disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of those motions.

Ordered that the order dated January 5, 2004, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 9, 2004, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an “amended supplemental” bill of particulars as to each defendant, asserting new theories of liability. The plaintiff failed to present a reasonable excuse for her inordinate delay in making the motion *(see Hastie v Midway Nursing Home,*8 AD3d 532, 533 [2004]; *Fuentes v City of New York,*3 AD3d 549, 550 [2004]; *Rosse-Glickman v Beth Israel Med. Ctr.-Kings Highway Div.,*309 AD2d 846 [2003]; *Smith v Plaza Transp. Ambulance Serv.,*243 AD2d 555 [1997]; *Rosa v Westchester County Med. Ctr.,*233 AD2d 311 [1996]), and a physician’s affirmation, improperly submitted for the first time with the plaintiffs reply papers, failed to establish a causal connection between the new theories of liability *634and the plaintiffs injuries *(see Smith v Plaza Transp. Ambulance Serv., supra; Simino v St. Mary's Hosp. of Brooklyn, Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,*107 AD2d 800 [1985]).

The Supreme Court providently granted the motion of the defendant Association of University Physicians to clarify two of the court’s prior orders. Upon granting the motion to clarify, the Supreme Court providently amended the order dated August 8, 2003, by, in effect, deleting the provision thereof denying those branches of the defendants’ prior motions which were to strike the plaintiffs expert disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the motions because the proposed testimony exceeded the bounds of the allegations in the plaintiffs bill of particulars *(see Palchik v Eisenberg,*278 AD2d 293, 294 [2000]; *Ciriello v Virgues,*156 AD2d 417, 419 [1989]). Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### Andrews and Others *v.*Reid and Others.—In error.

*Wednesday, November*27.

WRITS of foreign attachment, issued under the statute of 1838, should be made returnable to the first day of the term next after they issue. Acc. R. S. 1843, p. 773.
#### Clawson and Another *v.*Lowry.

Debt on a promissory note. Pleas, fraud and failure of consideration. The defendant offered in evidence, on the trial, an advertisement by the plaintiff for the private sale of certain real estate, for a part of the price of which the note sued on had been given. The advertisement represented the land as containing a coal bank, &c., and had been inserted in a newspaper published in the county in which the land was situate. There was no proof of the publication of the advertisement except in *December,*1838; and the purchase of the land was not made until *¿Lpril,*1840; nor did it appear that the advertisement had been ever seen by the defendant. *Held,*that the advertisement, under the circumstances, was inadmissible as evidence.

A party may introduce his evidence in the order he prefers, provided there is reason to suppose that the evidence offered is connected with the cause. •

*141*Tuesday, June 4.*

ERROR to the *Warren*Circuit Court.

*D. Brier*and *R. C.*Gregory, for the plaintiffs.

*R. A.*Chandler, for the defendant.

Blackford, *J.*

— Lowry brought an action of debt on a pro-_ missory note against the makers. Pleas, fraud in obtaining the note, and failure of consideration. Replications in denial of the pleas. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of the note.

The defendants offered in evidence, on the trial, an advertisement by the plaintiff for the private sale of certain real estate, for a part of the price of which the note sued on had been given. The advertisement represented the land as containing a coal bank, &c., and had been inserted in a newspaper published in the county in which the land was situate. There was no proof of the publication of the advertisement except in December, 1838 ; and the purchase of the land was not made until April, 1840; nor did it appear that the advertisement had been ever seen by the defendants. Under these circumstances, the advertisement was objected to as evidence and rejected.

There was no error in rejecting this evidence. Such a long time had elapsed from the time of the advertisement to that of the purchase, that there was no reason to suppose, in the absence of all testimony on the subject, that the advertisement had formed any part of the contract. The testimony was therefore inadmissible on the ground of irrelevancy.

The defendants say they had a right to introduce their evidence in the order they preferred; and that is no doubt true, provided there is reason to suppose that the evidence offered is connected with the cause; but when, as in this case, there is no ground for such a supposition, the evidence must be rejected.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed, with 3 *per cent.*damages and costs.
SCIENCEWORKS HANDS-ON MUSEUM

ScienceWorks Robotics in Space Program

Ash Friend

5/15/23 - 12/31/24

"Robotics in Space" serves PK-12th grade students, 

educators, and the general public, highlighting the 

diversity and roles of robots in space exploration. 

ScienceWorks Hands-On Museum works with Southern 

Oregon Education Services District and community 

partners including Boys and Girls Clubs, YCMA, and 

libraries to provide hands-on workshops focusing on 

robotic 'team ups' through coding and programming 

components. Project goals are public engagement with 

NASA missions through community events and school 

workshops promoting teamwork, critical thinking, and 

computer science skills. ScienceWorks has designed 

and implemented two STEM workshops, as well as six 

camps for youth aged 5-14 and is constructing a handson exhibit allowing visitors to navigate a rover model 

over modular terrain. Exhibit phase II plans include a 

facilitated drone element. ScienceWorks is also 

designing an outreach 'ScienceLive' presentation that 

will highlight the skills of three 'explorers': a robotic dog, 

a rover, and a drone.

List of Partners:

• Southern Oregon Educational Services District

• Oregon State University Extension

• Ashland School District

• Medford Public School District 594C

• Talent/Phoenix School District

• Southern Oregon Skywatchers

• Oregon NASA Space Grant Consortium

• Oregon Museums Association

ScienceWorks DaVinci's Garage Shadow Theater

Credits: ScienceWorks

The material contained in this document is based upon 

work supported by a NASA grant or cooperative 

agreement award #80NSSC23K0808, under the Teams 

Engaging Affiliated Museums and Informal Institutions 

(TEAM II) activity of NASA’s Next Gen STEM Project.

Explore TEAM II Products 

https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/search/

www.nasa.gov
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68366-68367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28076]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

[[Page 68367]]

amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, DBS T32's.
    Date: December 3, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
5B01, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Marita R. Hopman, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 
Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6911, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9cf3ecf1fdf2f2f1dcf1fdf5f0b2f2f5f4b2fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e514e535f5050537e535f57521050575610595148">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 1, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-28076 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>