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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                 4,616,857
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,982,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                    87,759
<INVENTORY>                                  3,376,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,647,451
<PP&E>                                       4,022,760
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,676,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,533,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,030,836
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,750
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,205,079
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,533,708
<SALES>                                      3,243,694
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,904,096
<CGS>                                        2,041,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,719,481
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                225,614
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,702
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   206,912
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.31 NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DECEMBER 18, 2003   * * * EXTRACT * * * Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was Remuneration of Chairman of the Board RESOLVED, That the annual compensation to be paid to Mr. L.R. Wilson for his services
as Chairman of the Board of the Corporation and Nortel Networks Limited shall be increased from
US$360,000 per year to US$400,000 per year, effective January 1, 2004. Directors Remuneration RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2004, each member of a Board Committee who is not
a salaried employee of the Corporation, Nortel Networks Limited (NNL), or any of its or their
subsidiaries (each a Nortel Networks Company), shall be paid remuneration for services, as a
member of each Board Committee on which the member sits a retainer fee at the rate of US$12,500 per
annum; except that a retainer fee at the rate of US$6,250 per annum shall be paid to any member of
a Board Committee who is also a member of an identical committee of the NNL Board of Directors; RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2004, any Chairman of a Board Committee (other
than the Audit Committee Chairman), who is not a salaried employee of a Nortel Networks Company,
shall be paid, in addition to the members retainer, a retainer fee at the rate of US$12,500 per
annum, except that an additional retainer fee at the rate of US$6,250 per annum shall be paid to
any Chairman of a Board Committee (other than the Audit Committee Chairman) who is also Chairman of
an identical committee of the NNL Board of Directors; RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2004, the Chairman of the Audit Committee of the
Board of Directors shall be paid, in addition to the members retainer, a retainer fee at the rate
of US$27,500 per annum, except that an additional retainer fee of US$13,750 per annum shall be paid
to the Chairman of the Audit Committee if he or she is also Chairman of the Audit Committee of the
NNL Board of Directors; RESOLVED, That the Directors entitled to the remuneration provided for in the
preceding resolutions shall be reimbursed for the reasonable travel and living and other expenses
properly incurred by them in attending any meeting of the Board of Directors or its Committees, or
for performing services as Directors;




---



##### 



RESOLVED, That the remuneration provided for in these resolutions shall be paid
quarterly, in arrears, in United States dollars or, at the request of a Director, in the Canadian
dollar equivalent thereof; RESOLVED, That, for greater certainty, Directors shall not be paid an annual retainer
for serving on the Board of Directors or an additional fee for attendance at Board of Directors or
Committee meetings;
#### Mauricio LOPEZ-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72197.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 26, 2009.

Charles E. Nichol, Law Offices of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Mark Lenard Gross, Esquire, Deputy Chief Counsel, Matthew J. Donnelly, Esquire, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mauricio Lopez-Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Lopez-Flores failed to establish a that he is a member of a particular social group. *See Donchev v. Mukasey,*553 F.3d 1206, 1215-16 (9th Cir.2009) (purported social group must be united by immutable common characteristics and be defined with sufficient particularity). Because Lopez-Flores failed to demonstrate he is a member of a particular social group, his asylum claim fails. *See id.*at 1220.

Because Lopez-Flores did not establish asylum eligibility, it necessarily follows *625that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190*(9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 93 (Friday, May 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11338]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-25-000]


Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Rate Election

May 8, 2009.
    Take notice that on April 17, 2009, Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, 
L.P. (CNTP) filed pursuant to section 284.123(b)(1)(ii) of the 
Commission's regulations. CNTP proposes to utilize its Texas Railroad 
Commission city-gate transportation rate for service pursuant to 
section 311 of the Natural Gas Act as more fully described in the 
petition.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or 
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing 
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the 
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ed8dbccddd1f0f2f7f0fbcdebeeeef1eceadef8fbecfdb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9fd9dacddcd0f1f3f6f1facceaefeff0edebdff9faedfcb1f8f0e9">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 19, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11338 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 93 (Friday, May 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11270]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee will be meeting 
to hold a short public forum (question and answer session). The meeting 
is being held pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 106-393) and under the Secure Rural Schools and 
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393). The meeting 
is open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 26, 2009, 6:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Bitterroot National Forest 
Supervisor Office, Conference Room, 1801 North First Street, Hamilton, 
Montana. Send written comments to Dan Ritter, District Ranger, 
Stevensville Ranger District, 88 Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870, 
by facsimile (406) 777-7423, or electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bdd9cfd4c9c9d8cffddbce93dbd8d993c8ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a6e78637e7e6f784a6c79246c6f6e247f79">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel G. Ritter, Stevensville 
District Ranger and Designated Federal Officer, Phone: (406) 777-5461.

    Dated: May 7, 2009.
Julie K. King,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-11270 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M


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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 532 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 532

     To reduce temporarily the duty on palm fatty acid distillate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 4, 2005

  Mr. DeWine introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To reduce temporarily the duty on palm fatty acid distillate.

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF DUTY ON PALM FATTY ACID DISTILLATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.39.40       Monocarboxylic       1%         No change        No change        On or before 12/
                          fatty acids                                                       31/2007           ''
                          derived from palm                                                                    .
                          oil (provided for
                          in subheading
                          3823.19.2000).....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 92-5838

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VINCENT DEVITA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CR-92-64-5)

Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: March 13, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexis C. Pearce, THARRINGTON, SMITH & HARGROVE, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Margaret Person Currin, United States

Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Devita entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess

with the intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

(1988), and three counts of using or carrying a firearm during a

drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West Supp.

1995). He was sentenced to eighty-seven months imprisonment for

conspiracy, sixty months imprisonment for one § 924(c)(1) violation, and twenty years imprisonment for the second § 924(c)(1)

violation. The district court departed downward and did not

sentence Devita for the third firearms offense.

In his plea agreement, Devita expressly waived all appellate

rights save his right to appeal the application of any sentencing

enhancement provisions under § 924(c)(1). The sole question on

appeal is whether that statute permits consecutive sentencing for

multiple firearms offenses that are separate in time but charged in

the same indictment. The parties now agree that Deal v. United

States, ___ U.S. ___, 61 U.S.L.W. 4474 (U.S. May 17, 1993) (No. 91-

8199), which answered that question affirmatively, is dispositive

in this case. In light of Deal, we are convinced that enhancement

of Devita's sentence was proper.

We therefore affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 this Report of
Uplift Nutrition, Inc. (the "Registrant") as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the " Report"), I, Gary C. Lewis, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:  (1) This 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 this
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
result of operations of the Registrant.    Date:
March 31, 2009

By:
/s/Gary C.
LewisGary C. LewisPresident, and Chief
Executive Officer (CEO)   Date:
March 31, 2009

By:
/s/ Gary C.
LewisGary C. LewisPrincipal Financial Officer
(CFO) and Principal Accounting Officer
#### Elbert Welch, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 113903.)

[963 NYS2d 502]

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Philip J. Patti, *1451J.), entered July 7, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of claimant for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant, an inmate at a correctional facility, commenced this medical malpractice action alleging that various employees of defendant and the Niagara County jail failed to diagnose and treat him for hepatitis C. We conclude that the Court of Claims properly denied claimant’s motion for summary judgment inasmuch as he failed to “make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” *(Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Specifically, claimant failed to submit the affidavit of a medical expert stating that, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the expert believed that defendant’s failure to diagnose and treat claimant in a proper manner was a “ ‘deviation[ ] from the accepted standard of medical practice and [was a] substantial factor[ ] in causing the late diagnosis and progression’ ” of claimant’s hepatitis C *(Rivera v State of New York,*19 AD3d 1030, 1031 [2005]). Contrary to claimant’s contention, the medical issues are not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of lay persons, and thus the opinion of a medical expert is required to establish that defendant’s alleged negligence or deviation from an accepted standard of care caused or contributed to claimant’s injuries *(see Wood v State of New York,*45 AD3d 1198 [2007]). Finally, claimant’s contention that the court erred in denying his motion to strike the affidavit of defendant’s medical expert is not properly before us on this appeal by claimant from the order entered July 7, 2011, which denied claimant’s motion for summary judgment *(see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Cos. v Jaenecke,*81 AD3d 1474, 1475 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 701 [2011]).

Present—Smith, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
#### Dickey *v.*Baer.

1. As the request to charge the jury concluded with the proposition that if the plea of failure of consideration was sustained, the finding should be for the defendant, it was properly refused, because the action was upon a negotiable promissory note and the plaintiff claimed to be a *bona fide*purchaser before maturity for a valuable consideration and without notice of any infirmity in the consideration of the note, and this was one of the contested questions in the case.

2. Although there were some slight errors in admitting evidence, they were too inconsiderable to warrant the granting of a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

April 23, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Complaint on note. Before Judge Smith. Wilcox superior court. March term, 1893.

Defendant gave Robinson her note payable to him or bearer, for lightning-rods put by him on her house. He sold the note to plaintiff" before it was due, and plaintiffs testimony was to the effect that he' bought • it in good faith and without notice of any defence or that it would not be paid; while defendant’s husband testified that he warned plaintiff not to trade for it, as it was not .a just debt and would not be paid. The pleas to the suit upon it were, the general issue, and failure of consideration. Plaintiff testified, that he had been in the habit of purchasing these notes, and had always been careful in making such purchases, making inquiries as to the solvency of the makers of the notes, before buying them. It was objected that his custom as to other notes was not relevant or admissible; and the objection was overruled.

There was testimony for defendant that the rods were worthless, of defective material, breaking soon after be*523ing put up, and improperly fastened to the house, etc. Robinson testified, that they were properly and substantially put up and were suitable for the purpose, and there was no better copper rod on the market. He was allowed to testify further, over objection that the testimony was irrelevant and incompetent, that thousands of feet of these same rods were on public buildings in Macon attached in the same way, and they gave entire satisfaction. He also testified, that defendant never gave him any notice that these rods needed repairing, and that he gave a written guarantee of the rods when he put them up. Defendant’s counsel requested a charge, that whether there was or was not a written guarantee, the defendant could plead failure of consideration, and that if such plea was sustained, the jury should find in favor of defendant. The request was denied.

E. H. Cutts and T. C. Taylor, for plaintiff in error.

*W.*B. Stubbs, *contra.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Form 10-QSB of American Metals Service, Inc. for the three months ended November
30,  1995 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by reference to such  financial
statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000319016
<NAME>                                         AMERICAN METALS SERVICE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                         2,044
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,051
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          29
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       20
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,002
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,051
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                11
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            11
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   11
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>