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

          <ARTICLE>  5
          <LEGEND>
          THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED
          FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET  AS OF FEBRUARY 27, 2000  AND
          THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE PERIODS  ENDED
          FEBRUARY 27, 2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE
          TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
          </LEGEND>
          <MULTIPLIER>    1

          <S>                                             <C>
          <PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
          <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-03-2000
          <PERIOD-END>                                      FEB-27-2000
          <CASH>                                             11,320,467
          <SECURITIES>                                        5,566,207
          <RECEIVABLES>                                      12,953,733
          <ALLOWANCES>                                        3,221,464
          <INVENTORY>                                        14,984,259
          <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   43,838,814
          <PP&E>                                             75,162,111
          <DEPRECIATION>                                     42,196,274
          <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     89,397,623
          <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               9,271,793
          <BONDS>                                               727,581
          <COMMON>                                            2,790,865
          <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
          <PREFERRED>                                                 0
          <OTHER-SE>                                         73,273,303
          <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       89,397,623
          <SALES>                                            17,141,525
          <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   19,005,494
          <CGS>                                              12,499,580
          <TOTAL-COSTS>                                      12,499,580
          <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
          <LOSS-PROVISION>                                    2,892,663
          <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     43,984
          <INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (2,092,850)
          <INCOME-TAX>                                         (732,499)
          <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (1,360,351)
          <DISCONTINUED>                                              0
          <EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
          <CHANGES>                                                   0
          <NET-INCOME>                                       (1,360,351)
          <EPS-BASIC>                                            (.06)
          <EPS-DILUTED>                                            (.06)


</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsLaunch Vehicle Performance for Bipropellant Propulsion Using Atomic Propellants With OxygenAtomic propellants for bipropellant launch vehicles using atomic boron, carbon, and hydrogen were analyzed. The gross liftoff weights (GLOW) and dry masses of the vehicles were estimated, and the 'best' design points for atomic propellants were identified. Engine performance was estimated for a wide range of oxidizer to fuel (O/F) ratios, atom loadings in the solid hydrogen particles, and amounts of helium carrier fluid. Rocket vehicle GLOW was minimized by operating at an O/F ratio of 1.0 to 3.0 for the atomic boron and carbon cases. For the atomic hydrogen cases, a minimum GLOW occurred when using the fuel as a monopropellant (O/F = 0.0). The atomic vehicle dry masses are also presented, and these data exhibit minimum values at the same or similar O/F ratios as those for the vehicle GLOW. A technology assessment of atomic propellants has shown that atomic boron and carbon rocket analyses are considered to be much more near term options than the atomic hydrogen rockets. The technology for storing atomic boron and carbon has shown significant progress, while atomic hydrogen is not able to be stored at the high densities needed for effective propulsion. The GLOW and dry mass data can be used to estimate the cost of future vehicles and their atomic propellant production facilities. The lower the propellant's mass, the lower the overall investment for the specially manufactured atomic propellants.Document ID20010016350Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypePreprint (Draft being sent to journal)AuthorsPalaszewski, Bryan*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 2000Subject CategoryLaunch Vehicles And Launch OperationsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2000-209443E-11927NAS 1.15:209443Meeting InformationMeeting: Joint PropulsionLocation: Los Angeles, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: June 20, 1999End Date: June 24, 1999Sponsors:American Society of Mechanical Engineers,Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,American Society for Electrical Engineers,American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsFunding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 713-74-10Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010016350.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT 12 - COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                          9 months ended
                                           September 30,                                            Year Ended
                                        ----------------------                        -----------------------------
                                         1999       1998      1998       1997       1996       1995       1994
                                         ----       ----      ----       ----       ----       ----       ----
Income (loss) before income
<S>                                     <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
  taxes                                 201,834     93,756    117,922    104,077    71,240     49,817     36,396
Dividends and other received from
  nonconsolidated affiliates              5,800      1,807      9,168      4,624    10,430      1,432          0
                                        -------     ------    -------   --------  --------     ------    -------

Total                                   207,634     95,563    127,090    108,701    81,670     51,249     36,396

            Fixed Charges
Interest expense                        132,932     94,555    135,766     75,076    30,080     20,752      7,669
Amortization of loan fees                 1,553      1,571      2,220      1,451       506      1,004         82
Interest portion of rentals              17,350      8,853     16,044      6,120       424        361        262
                                        -------     ------    -------    -------   -------    -------     ------

Total fixed charges                     151,835    104,979    154,030     82,647    31,010     22,117      8,013

Preferred stock dividends
Tax effect of preferred dividends             0          0          0          0         0          0          0
After tax preferred dividends                 0          0          0          0         0          0          0
                                            ---        ---        ---        ---       ---        ---        ---
Total fixed charges and
  preferred dividends                   151,835    104,979    154,030     82,647    31,010     22,117      8,013

Total earnings available for
 payment of fixed charges               359,469    200,542    281,120    191,348   112,680     73,366     44,409
                                        =======    =======    =======    =======   =======    =======     ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed
  Charges                                  2.37       1.91       1.83       2.32      3.63       3.32       5.54
                                        =======    =======    =======    =======   =======    =======     ======

Rental fees and charges                 216,880    110,659    200,550     76,500     5,299      4,510      3,273
Interest rate                                8%         8%         8%         8%        8%         8%         8%

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 21, 2016

a0914

Order 

Clerk

September 21, 2016

151280

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151280

COA: 325412

Alpena CC: 14-005716-FH

RAYMOND CLARENCE GEDDERT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of July 28, 2015, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the February 12, 2015 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we VACATE the sentence of the Alpena Circuit Court and we REMAND this case to the 

trial court for resentencing. The trial court assigned no points to any Offense Variables 

(OVs), but departed from the sentencing guidelines range in part because of the 

defendant’s pattern of prior narcotics offenses. In light of this, based on facts reported in 

the presentence information report, the trial court was required to assign 10 points to OV 

13 for a pattern of three or more controlled-substance felonies. MCL 777.43(1)(e). Even 

though the guidelines ranges are now advisory, the scoring of the guidelines themselves 

is mandatory, and the OVs must be assigned the highest number of points applicable. 

MCL 777.43(1); People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392 n 28 (2015). Because 

correcting the OV score would change the applicable guidelines range, resentencing is 

required. People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (2006). 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
§ 2806.10 What rent must I pay for my grant or lease? ( a ) You must pay in advance a rent BLM establishes based on sound business management principles and, as far as practical and feasible, using comparable commercial practices. Rent does not include processing or monitoring fees and rent is not offset by such fees. BLM may exempt, waive, or reduce rent for a grant under §§ 2806.14 and 2806.15 of this subpart.
( b ) If BLM issued your grant on or before October 21, 1976, under then existing statutory authority, upon request, BLM will conduct an informal hearing before a proposed rent increase becomes effective. This applies to rent increases due to a BLM-initiated change in the rent or from initially being put on a rent schedule. You are not entitled to a hearing on annual adjustments once you are on a rent schedule.
( c ) You must pay rent for your grant or lease using the per-acre rent schedule for linear right-of-way grants (see § 2806.20) unless a separate rent schedule is established for your use, such as for communication sites per § 2806.30 or solar and wind energy development per § 2806.50. The BLM may also determine that these schedules do not apply to your right-of-way pursuant to § 2806.70.
[70 FR 21058, Apr. 22, 2005, as amended at 89 FR 35680, May 1, 2024]
Certification



Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of Mission Broadcasting of Wichita Falls, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|Dated: May 30, 2003 |  |  |  |  |  | /S/    DAVID S. SMITH
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                      
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                      
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                      



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Charles E. LIGHTNER, Jr., Plaintiff — Appellant, v. PROSPECT ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation, dba American Fish and Seafood Company, Defendant — Appellee.

No. 04-16169.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2006.*

Filed Feb. 17, 2006.

Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Esq., Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Leslie Bryan Hart, Esq., Lionel Sawyer & Collins, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: HALL, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Lightner appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Prospect Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a American Fish and Seafood Company, on his tortious discharge claim. We affirm.

Lightner undisputedly failed to report the allegedly fraudulent conduct at issue to the appropriate authorities, as required under Nevada law. *See Allum v. Valley**180*Bank of Nevada,*114 Nev. 1313, 970 P.2d 1062, 1064 & n. 2 (1998); *Wiltsie v. Baby Grand Corp.,*105 Nev. 291, 774 P.2d 432, 433 (1989) (per curiam). Therefore, he did not make out a prima facie claim for' tortious discharge, and summary judgment was appropriately granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### **Subchapter B—Related Rules**

Part
Sec. 1

I.
In general
1551
II.
Certain controlled corporations
1561

1  Section numbers editorially supplied.
Exhibit 99.2

   Unofficial English Language Translation of Form Notice, dated March 1, 2006

CORPBANCA

Santiago, March 1, 2006

[Addressee]

It is my pleasure to inform you that at the Ordinary Shareholders' Meeting held
on February 28, 2006, the following decisions were reached:

1.   Approval of the Annual Report, Financial Statements and notes thereto and
     the Report of the External Auditors relating to the fiscal year beginning
     January 1 and ended December 31, 2005.

2.   The designation of Deloitte & Touche Sociedad de Auditores Consultores
     Limitada, as external auditors for fiscal year 2006.

3.   The Board of Directors will not be compensated for their services during
     the upcoming fiscal year.

4.   The immediate distribution of a dividend for fiscal year 2005 in the
     aggregate amount of Ch$26,316,409,816, representing 50% of Corpbanca's 2005
     net income of Ch$52,632,819,632, or a dividend per share of
     Ch$0.115977665564424. The dividend will be paid to those shareholders of
     record listed in the Shareholders' Registry as of the record date of
     February 22, 2006. The remaining net income will be placed in the reserve
     of net income to be distributed.

5.   The determination that the dividend policy for the upcoming fiscal year
     would be to distribute 50% of net income as a dividend.

6.   The annual budget for the Directors Committee was set at Ch$137,000,000,
     which includes Ch$3,500,000 of monthly compensation for each member of the
     Committee and an additional monthly payment of Ch$500,000 for the President
     of the Committee.

7.   The annual budget for the Audit Committee was set at Ch$45,000,000, which
     includes Ch$3,500,000 of monthly compensation for the President of the
     Committee.

Sincerely,


Christian Samsing Stambuk
Chief Executive Officer
### §3665a. Office of Tribal Justice

#### (a) In general

Not later than 90 days after July 29, 2010, the Attorney General shall establish the Office of Tribal Justice as a component of the Department.

#### (b) Personnel and funding

The Attorney General shall provide to the Office of Tribal Justice such personnel and funds as are necessary to establish the Office of Tribal Justice as a component of the Department under subsection (a).

#### (c) Duties

The Office of Tribal Justice shall—

(1) serve as the program and legal policy advisor to the Attorney General with respect to the treaty and trust relationship between the United States and Indian tribes;

(2) serve as the point of contact for federally recognized tribal governments and tribal organizations with respect to questions and comments regarding policies and programs of the Department and issues relating to public safety and justice in Indian country; and

(3) coordinate with other bureaus, agencies, offices, and divisions within the Department of Justice to ensure that each component has an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely consultation with tribal leaders in the development of regulatory policies and other actions that affect—

(A) the trust responsibility of the United States to Indian tribes;

(B) any tribal treaty provision;

(C) the status of Indian tribes as sovereign governments; or

(D) any other tribal interest.

(Pub. L. 106–559, title I, §106, as added Pub. L. 111–211, title II, §214(a)(2)(B), July 29, 2010, 124 Stat. 2270.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 106 of Pub. L. 106–559 was renumbered section 107 and is classified to section 3666 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DENTAL/MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC
SYSTEMS, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTH PERIODS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997
INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,219,760
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,826,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,975
<INVENTORY>                                  1,924,840
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,185,625
<PP&E>                                         559,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                 122,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,764,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,860,422
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,555
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,665,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,764,652
<SALES>                                      8,183,263
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,183,263
<CGS>                                        5,027,720
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,770,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                76,431
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             132,119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                225,119
<INCOME-TAX>                                    85,795
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            139,402
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (234,149)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (94,747)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58172-58173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21856]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

[[Page 58173]]

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than October 13, 2004.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Patrick Wilder, Assistant Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Marlene D. Huls, Gifford, Illinois; to retain voting shares of 
Illini Corporation, Springfield, Illinois, and thereby indirectly 
retain voting shares of Illini Bank, Springfield, Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 13, 
2004.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-21856 Filed 9-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7199

FREDERICK L. OVERBY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CLAY HESTER, Sheriff, Newport News City Jail;

MAJOR MOORE; CAPTAIN BOWER; LIEUTENANT HARRIS;

LIEUTENANT WATERHOUSE; DOCTOR RUSSOTTO; DOCTOR

ANDERSON; NURSE WILLIAMS,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS AND ITS COUNCIL; JANE

DOE, Nurse,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-94-787-2)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Frederick L. Overby, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Dybing, SHUFORD,

RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Overby v. Hester, No. CA-94-787-2 (E.D.

Va. June 10, 1996 & July 18, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

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

decisional process.

AFFIRMED