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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 6/30/98
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000894972
<NAME> CHANCELLOR MEDIA CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          14,257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  303,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,775
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               336,986
<PP&E>                                         228,036
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,258
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,281,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          160,211
<BONDS>                                      2,278,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          119,445
<PREFERRED>                                    409,500
<COMMON>                                         1,423
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,281,596
<SALES>                                        555,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               555,267
<CGS>                                           70,744
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  584,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (101,465) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (16,928)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (101,239)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 31,865
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (145,939)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.09)
        

</TABLE>
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 98-188 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, October 19, 1998)

NOTE TO EDITORS: MEETING DATE CHANGED

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has

changed the date for a meeting of its subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk

Assessment and its subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices. The meeting,

previously scheduled for October 29-30, has been changed to a one-day meeting to be held on

Thursday, October 29 in Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m in Room T-2B3 in the NRC’s Two White Flint North

Building at 11545 Rockville Pike.

All other items pertaining to the meeting remain the same as previously published in the

Federal Register on October 15.

#
#### The Mo. Pacific Railway Co., *Respondent, v.*Filer Sackett, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. J. P. Edwards, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*A.L. McBride & Co, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*J. H. Frizzell, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*F. B. Fay, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*J. A. Devinney, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*Robinson & Son, Appellants. Same, Respondent, *v.*D. B. Smith, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*O. F. Renist, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*Miers & Beaty, Appellants. Same, Respondant, *v.*Jas. H. Hitshew, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*J. A. Lefker, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. T. C. Boulware, Appellant. *500Same, Respondent, *v.*Charles Desney, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*Allen Day, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*F. M. Wyatt, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*I. N. Davidson, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*W. E. Walton, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*Fred. Evans, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. W. W. Eldridge, Appellant. Same, Respondent. *v.*Shaw & Hannah, Appellants. Same, Respondent, *v.*David McGangley, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*A. Henry, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*R. Wells *& Co.,*Appellants. Same, Respondent, *v.*L. M. Wright, Appellant. Same, Respondent, T. W. Childs, Appellant, Same, Respondent, *v.*Chas. Endres, Appellant.

May 4, 1885,

Affirmed on. the authority of *same plaintiff*v. *R. A. & J. Atlcison.*

Appeal from Cass Circuit Court, Hon. Noah M. G-ivan, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

A. Henry, T. J. Hallow ay, P. C. Fulkerson, E. J. Smith, and W. P. Johnson, for the appellant.

Same brief as in the case of *some plaintiff*v. *R. A. & J. Atlcison,*just decided, page 484.

Railey & Barnes, for respondent.

Same brief as in the case of *same plaintiff*v. *R.A.& J. Atlcison,*just decided, page.-.

Opinion by

Philips, P. J.

The foregoing cases present the same questions of fact and law as the case of the *same plaintiff*v. *R. A. & J. Atkison*just decided by this court. And for the reasons therein given, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

All concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual report**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc:ID 1.27:T 84/2/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000637587
 
November 1, 2017
P.1 

OAR Box 1313 

Prepped by LaTeia Shed 

Document Number: 

77) ll-B-51 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 6/12/2008 9:03:30 AM Sheet 77 of 99 
P.2 

TC-fc-Sl 

A-88-02 

Information on health or risk assessment was removed from the 

docket. This information was compiled before the Clean Air 

Act Amendments (1990) but was not used in the development of 

the chromium NESHAP. 

# '"'"i\\" \ 

\,Y.^ y*,-;v <>•* 

*' s5 ~5X <..r,\ 

,77 5' 

y

'5. 5'
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.232 Definitions.

When used in §§ 10.231 through 10.237, the following terms have the meanings indicated:

*CBERA.* “CBERA” means the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, 19 U.S.C. 2701-2707.

*CBTPA beneficiary country.* “CBTPA beneficiary country” means a “beneficiary country” as defined in § 10.191(b)(1) for purposes of the CBERA which the President also has designated as a beneficiary country for purposes of preferential duty treatment of articles under 19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(3) and which has been the subject of a finding by the President or his designee, published in the Federal Register, that the beneficiary country has satisfied the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(4)(A)(ii).

*CBTPA originating good.* “CBTPA originating good” means a good that meets the rules of origin for a good as set forth in General Note 12, HTSUS, and in the appendix to part 181 of this chapter and as applied under § 10.233(b).

*HTSUS.* “HTSUS” means the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

*NAFTA.* “NAFTA” means the North American Free Trade Agreement entered into by the United States, Canada, and Mexico on December 17, 1992.

*Preferential tariff treatment.* “Preferential tariff treatment” when used with reference to an imported article means entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, in the customs territory of the United States with duty and other tariff treatment that is identical to the tariff treatment that would be accorded at that time under Annex 302.2 of the NAFTA to an imported article described in the same 8-digit subheading of the HTSUS that is a good of Mexico.

[T.D. 00-68, 65 FR 59663, Oct. 5, 2000; 65 FR 67264, Nov. 9, 2000]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 10, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30548

Summary Calendar

HAMID SAMADI,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Mr. Eduardo Aquirre, Jr., Director;

CRAIG ROBINSON, INS Field Director for Louisiana District,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(2:03-CV-3576-C) 

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hamid Samadi, an Iranian native and citizen ordered deported

from the United States, was detained for deportation in April 2003

by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Service. Samadi filed a

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging the constitutionality of his

indefinite detention as a removable alien and contesting the

validity of his immigration proceedings. Samadi was released from

detention; and, on respondents’ motion, the § 2241 petition was

dismissed as moot to the extent it challenged the constitutionality
2

of the indefinite detention. Samadi filed a postjudgment motion,

which was properly construed as a FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion. In

denying this motion, the district court observed that Samadi’s

collateral arguments against respondents’ dismissal motion were not

cognizable under § 2241.

For this pro se appeal, we must first determine the

jurisdictional scope of our review. E.g., Mosley v. Cozby,

813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Samadi failed to file a timely

notice of appeal from the underlying judgment denying his § 2241

petition. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review that order.

See Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465, 468

(5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1005 (1999).

Samadi’s notice of appeal was timely with respect to the

denials of his Rule 60(b) motion; and his motion for an extension

of time to file a second postjudgment motion. Rule 60(b) allows a

court to relieve a party from a final judgment for reasons such as,

inter alia: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence ... ; (3) fraud, ...

misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party”; (4) a

void judgment; or (5) “any other reason justifying relief from the

operation of the judgment”. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Denial of a

Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g.,

Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996).

Samadi has failed to contend or demonstrate that the district court
3

abused its discretion in denying his postjudgment motion. See

Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981).

(Accordingly, Samadi’s change of venue motion is DENIED.)

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED
### §356. Subpoena power

(a) Judicial Councils and Special Committees.—In conducting any investigation under this chapter, the judicial council, or a special committee appointed under section 353, shall have full subpoena powers as provided in section 332(d).

(b) Judicial Conference and Standing Committees.—In conducting any investigation under this chapter, the Judicial Conference, or a standing committee appointed by the Chief Justice under section 331, shall have full subpoena powers as provided in that section.

(Added Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, §11042(a), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1852.)
1 Ngo, Dan (FAA)

From: Ngo, Dan (FAA) Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:36 PM To: 'admin@nexusuas.com' Subject: Request for Information - FAA-2015-3385

Dear Mr. Patterson:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-3385). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, S ection 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operat ion please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracki ng number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 12/16/2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

Dan Ngo Office of Rulemaking, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division Federal Aviation Administration 202.267.4264
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 99-12 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson March 26, 1999

OFFICE: 817-860-8128

PAGER: 888-876-2331

E-Mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC FINDS PERFORMANCE ‘ACCEPTABLE’

AT CALLAWAY IN LATEST REVIEW

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has found that safety performance remains

acceptable in the NRC’s latest plant performance review at Callaway Nuclear Plant located near

Fulton, Missouri.

Officials of NRC and Union Electric (now known as AmerenUE), the utility which

operates the plant, will discuss the review during a meeting set for Thursday, April 1, at 1:30

p.m. at the Callaway Plant Emergency Operations Facility in Steedman, Missouri. The meeting

will be open for public observation. NRC officials will be available afterwards to speak with

reporters, state and local officials, and members of the public.

In a letter to AmerenUE Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Garry L. Randolf, NRC

Branch Chief David N. Graves said, “Overall, performance at the Callaway Plant was

acceptable. Performance in the area of operations continued to assure safe and conservative

decision making, and the licensee effectively implemented the maintenance and engineering

programs. All three of these areas experienced some negative findings, but none indicated any

programmatic concerns. . . Plant support performance was noted to be improving.”

The text of the plant performance review letter is available from the NRC Region IV

Office of Public Affairs and will soon be on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr.

NRC reviews safety performance twice a year at every licensed nuclear power plant in

the nation. These reviews give the agency staff an integrated assessment of plant performance

and provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

Plant performance reviews are an interim measure NRC is utilizing to monitor nuclear

power plant safety. The agency began using it for this purpose after suspending the

Systematic Assessment of License Performance (SALP) process until a new assessment

program is developed. Previously, SALP reports were issued every 12 to 24 months.

The new reactor oversight and assessment program being developed will provide

quarterly performance reports, based on a number of performance indicators and on inspection

findings. This program will be tested at eight plants beginning in June and, if found acceptable,

will be extended to all plants next January. A full description of the new program is available on

the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.

###
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.622 Corrected certification by U.S. exporters or producers.

Civil or administrative penalties provided for under 19 U.S.C. 1592 will not be imposed on an exporter or producer in the United States who promptly and voluntarily provides written notification pursuant to § 10.589(b) with respect to the making of an incorrect certification.
Debra L. Reed

Chief Executive Officer

101 Ash Street

San Diego, CA 92101

Tel: 619.696.4441

DReed@Sempra.com

March 15, 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alaska Airlines’ application for SAN-DCA, Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029

Dear Secretary LaHood:

As chief executive officer of Sempra Energy and chair of the San Diego Regional Economic 

Development Corporation, I strongly encourage the U.S. Department of Transportation to 

favorably support the application of Alaska Airlines for air service between San Diego and 

Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA).

My company, Sempra Energy, is a Fortune 500 energy services company operating four main 

subsidiaries and employing over 17,500 employees — over 5,000 in San Diego alone. As an 

executive here in the region, I am well aware that San Diego-to-Dulles average airfares are 

among the highest on the west coast, a fact that is exacerbated by taxi fares that average $60 

each way between Dulles and the U.S. Capitol. This means our employees pay close to $400 

one-way, on average, each time they travel to Washington, D.C. via Dulles.

From an economic development standpoint, San Diego is the region that generates the largest 

passenger market demand without nonstop service to our nation’s capital. There are countless 

other San Diego-based businesses engaged in health science, clean tech, telecommunications

and national defense that, like Sempra Energy, need quick and convenient access to Reagan 

National Airport. 

Sempra Energy is thus pleased to join the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the 

San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, the World Trade Center San Diego

and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce in supporting Alaska Airlines’ application 

for nonstop service between San Diego and Washington Reagan National.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced docket item. We hope to 

hear of a favorable review of Alaska Airlines’ proposal soon.

Sincerely,

Debra L. Reed
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.876 Value of materials. ( a ) *General.* For purposes of § 10.873(b) of this subpart and, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the value of a material produced in the territory of one or both of the Parties includes the following: ( 1 ) The price actually paid or payable for the material by the producer of the good;
( 2 ) The freight, insurance, packing and all other costs incurred in transporting the material to the producer's plant, if such costs are not included in the price referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
( 3 ) The cost of waste or spoilage resulting from the use of the material in the growth, production, or manufacture of the good, less the value of recoverable scrap; and
( 4 ) Taxes or customs duties imposed on the material by one or both of the Parties, if the taxes or customs duties are not remitted upon exportation from the territory of a Party.
( b ) *Exception.* If the relationship between the producer of a good and the seller of a material influenced the price actually paid or payable for the material, or if there is no price actually paid or payable by the producer for the material, the value of the material produced in the territory of one or both of the Parties includes the following: ( 1 ) All expenses incurred in the growth, production, or manufacture of the material, including general expenses;
( 2 ) A reasonable amount for profit; and
( 3 ) The freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs incurred in transporting the material to the producer's plant.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 582 

To prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for any violation of Federal 

law, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 3, 2021 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. MURPHY, Ms. WARREN, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. KAINE, Ms. 

SMITH, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. BROWN, Mr. SCHATZ, Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. OSSOFF, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for any 

violation of Federal law, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Death Penalty 

5 Prohibition Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 582 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF DEATH SEN2 TENCE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law, no person may be sentenced to death or put 

5 to death on or after the date of enactment of this Act 

6 for any violation of Federal law. 

7 (b) PERSONS SENTENCED BEFORE DATE OF ENACT8 MENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 

9 person sentenced to death before the date of enactment 

10 of this Act for any violation of Federal law shall be resen11 tenced. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS