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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,000
<SECURITIES>                                    30,923
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,012)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,659
<PP&E>                                         334,161<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 915,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,983
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           13,938
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (54,987)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   915,273
<SALES>                                         69,363
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,363
<CGS>                                           22,902<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    72
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,081)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (947)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,374)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,374)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>PP&E IS SHOWN NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION.
<F2>INCLUDES PROGRAM FEES AND OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27996]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7851-7]


Revised Guidance on Procedures for Submission and Review of 
CERCLA Section 106(b) Reimbursement Petitions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of revised guidance document.

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

SUMMARY: Section 106(b)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606(b)(2), 
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 
(SARA), allows any person who has complied with an administrative order 
issued under section 106(a) of CERCLA to petition for reimbursement of 
the reasonable costs incurred in complying with the order, plus 
interest. To establish a claim for reimbursement, a petitioner must 
demonstrate that it was not liable for response costs under CERCLA 
section 107(a), or that EPA's selection of the ordered response action 
was arbitrary and capricious or was otherwise not in accordance with 
law. The authority to decide whether to grant such petitions has been 
delegated by the President to the EPA Administrator, and redelegated to 
EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) under EPA Delegation of 
Authority CERCLA 14-27 (June 1994).
    The EAB issued procedural guidance (CERCLA Guidance) regarding the 
procedures for submission and review of petitions for reimbursement in 
June 1994. Based on its experience with reimbursement petitions after 
June 1994, the EAB issued revised CERCLA Guidance on October 9, 1996. 
The EAB issued a further revised version of its CERCLA Guidance on 
November 10, 2004. This Notice informs the general public of the 
availability of the November 10, 2004 revised CERCLA Guidance. The full 
text of the revised CERCLA Guidance is available on the EAB's Web site, 
http://www.epa.gov/eab, by clicking on ``EAB Guidance Documents.'' 
Copies of the document can also be obtained by calling Eurika Durr, 
Clerk of the Board, at the telephone number and e-mail address noted 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information or for copies 
of the November 10, 2004 revised CERCLA Guidance, contact Eurika Durr, 
Clerk of the Board. Telephone number: (202) 233-0122. E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ffbb8a8d8dd1ba8a8d96949ebf9a8f9ed1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="85c1f0f7f7abc0f0f7eceee4c5e0f5e4abe2eaf3">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 14, 2004.
Kathie A. Stein,
Environmental Appeals Judge.
[FR Doc. 04-27996 Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 1508.960 Ineligible or ineligibility.

*Ineligible or ineligibility* means that a person or commodity is prohibited from covered transactions because of an exclusion or disqualification.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL CASTANEDA, KATHERINE

CORBETT, and JOSEPH WELLNER, on

behalf of themselves and others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BURGER KING CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04262 WHA

ORDER RE PARTIES’

MOTION TO REVISE EXISTING

SCHEDULING ORDERS

If the Court receives a fully executed and final version of a stipulation of settlement in

this matter on or before March 4, 2010, the Court will consider whether to use the hearing on

the parties’ respective motions for partial summary judgment now set for March 18 to instead

consider a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Meanwhile, the

hearing on the motions for partial summary judgment will remain on calendar as previously

scheduled. The parties’ motion to revise the existing scheduling order based on their averment

that they have “agreed in principle” to a settlement is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04262-WHA Document 320 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 1508.870 When do I know if the debarring official debars me? ( a ) The debarring official must make a written decision whether to debar within 45 days of closing the official record. The official record closes upon the debarring official's receipt of final submissions, information and findings of fact, if any. The debarring official may extend that period for good cause.
( b ) The debarring official sends you written notice, pursuant to § 1508.615 that the official decided, either— ( 1 ) Not to debar you; or
( 2 ) To debar you. In this event, the notice: ( i ) Refers to the Notice of Proposed Debarment;
( ii ) Specifies the reasons for your debarment;
( iii ) States the period of your debarment, including the effective dates; and
( iv ) Advises you that your debarment is effective for covered transactions and contracts that are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1), throughout the executive branch of the Federal Government unless an agency head or an authorized designee grants an exception.
APPENDIX J: EA & FONSI 

(Proposed Land Exchange between NPS and Georgetown University) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgetown University Boathouse 

Environmental Assessment 

April 2006
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10709 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

TYLER DEON KNIGHT

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:16

- CR

- 70

- 1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Tyler Deon Knight has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Knight h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel ’s brief and the

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 1 7 , 2018
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10709 Document: 00514432398 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2018No. 17

- 10709

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excuse d from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-10709 Document: 00514432398 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2018
Case 3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document 895 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document894 Filed08/06/10 Page1 of 3
Case3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document894 Filed08/06/10 Page2 of 3

6

Case 3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document 895 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 3
Case3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document894 Filed08/06/10 Page3 of 3

August 9, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document 895 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 3
# 

# Ficha Descriptiva Sobre Acomodaciones en Serie de JAN

**Pre-oferta, Preguntas Relacionadas con Discapacidades: Apropiadas y Fuera de Lugar**

```
El titulo I del Acta para Americanos con Discapacidades (ADA por sus siglas en Ingles), limita al empleador en cuanto a preguntas relacionadas a una discapacidad, o requerimiento de exanimación medica durante cualquier etapa durante el proceso de empelo: antes de hacer la oferta de trabajo, después de hacer la oferta de trabajo, o durante el tiempo que usted sea un empleado. Esta publicación provee información  sobre preguntas relacionadas con discapacidad que  son y no son apropiadas, durante la oferta de trabajo. Esta etapa incluye, solicitud y entrevistas.
```

```
**¿Que es una pregunta relacionada con discapacidad?**
```

Una pregunta relacionada con discapacidad es aquella que se hace con el propósito de obtener información con respecto a una discapacidad. De igual manera si las opciones de respuestas son varias y solamente algunas de las repuestas contienen información relacionadas con la discapacidad, dicha pregunta no esta relacionada con la discapacidad. 

**¿Que preguntas puede hacer un empleador durante la fase de pre-oferta?**

Po lo general, empleadores no pueden hacer preguntas relacionadas con una discapacidad. Esto quiere decir que empleadores no pueden preguntar directamente si el solicitante posee una discapacidad o no. También, esto quiere decir que el empleador no puede   hacer una pregunta similar a aquellas que se relacionan con la discapacidad. 

**¿Porque el ADA, prohíbe preguntas relacionadas con discapacidad en la fase de pre-oferta?**

```
En tiempos atrás, muchas aplicaciones y entrevistas solicitaban información sobre el estado de salud mental del solicitante. Esta información, fue utilizada para excluir frecuentemente aquellos solicitantes con discapacidades antes  sus destrezas y  habilidades fuesen evaluadas para realizar el trabajo.  Como resultado, el congreso estableció un procedimiento dentro del ADA para separar aquellas cualificaciones que no tienen que ver con estados de salud y se relacionan más con las cualificaciones del trabajo, en ves de condiciones médicas.
```

Para mayor información, visite: Preguntas relacionas con discapacidades en la fase pre-oferta y  Exámenes Médicos (Guía del EEOC) en la siguiente pagina web: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/preemp.html  Las siguientes preguntas son ejemplos de aquellas preguntas que son apropiadas o fuera de lugar  durante la fase pre-oferta  bajo el ADA:

Actualizado 8/18/08

Este documento fue desarrollado por la Red de Acomodación en el empleo, financiado por la Oficina para las Políticas de Empleo de Personas discapacitadas  del Departamento del Trabajo de EE.UU. Política (DOL079RP20426). Las opiniones contenidas en este documento no  reflejan necesariamente  las opiniones o políticas del Departamento del Trabajo de EE.UU. La mención de marcas,  productos comerciales, y organizaciones  no insinúan respaldo por parte del Departamento del Trabajo de EE.UU

Ficha Descriptiva

Pre-Oferta, Preguntas Relacionadas con Discapacidades: Apropiadas y Fuera de lugar
#### § 42.1 [Reserved]
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77323

Dated: December 20, 2004. 

Henrietta Holsman Fore, 

Director, United States Mint.

[FR Doc. 04–28139 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–37–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint 

Notification of Citizens Coinage 

Advisory Committee 2005 Public 

Meetings

ACTION: Notification of Citizens Coinage 

Advisory Committee 2005 Public 

Meetings. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 108–

15, Sec. 103, the United States Mint 

announces the Citizens Coinage 

Advisory Committee (CCAC) meetings 

for the calendar year 2005. These 

meetings are open to the public. The 

purpose of these meetings is to advise 

the Secretary of the Treasury on designs 

pertaining to the coinage of the United 

States and for other purposes.

January 25, 2005—Washington, DC 

March 15, 2005—Washington, DC 

May 24, 2005—Washington, DC 

July 28, 2005—San Jose, CA 

September 27, 2005—Washington, DC 

November 15, 2005—Washington, DC

The meeting times and locations will 

be announced at least 2 weeks prior to 

each meeting. Interested persons should 

call 202–354–7502 for the latest update 

on meeting time and location.

Public Law 108–15 established the 

CCAC to: 

• Advise the Secretary of the 

Treasury on any theme or design 

proposals relating to circulating coinage, 

bullion coinage, congressional gold 

medals, and national and other medals. 

• Advise the Secretary of the 

Treasury with regard to the events, 

persons, or places to be commemorated 

by the issuance of commemorative coins 

in each of the five calendar years 

succeeding the year in which a 

commemorative coin designation is 

made. 

• Make recommendations with 

respect to the mintage level for any 

commemorative coin recommended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madelyn Simmons Marchessault; 

United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 

801 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20220, or call 202–354–6669. 

Any member of the public interested 

in submitting matters for the CCAC’s 

consideration is invited to submit them 

by fax to the following number: 202–

756–6830.

Authority: Public Law 108–15 (April 23, 

2003)

Dated: December 20, 2004. 

Henrietta Holsman Fore, 

Director, United States Mint.

[FR Doc. 04–28140 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–37–P
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2646 

To eliminate certain restrictions on air transportation to and from Love 

Field, Texas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mr. HENSARLING (for himself and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To eliminate certain restrictions on air transportation to 

and from Love Field, Texas. 

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 ‘‘Right to Fly Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF RESTRICTION. 

6 Section 29 of the International Air Transportation 

7 Competition Act of 1979 (94 Stat. 48) is repealed. 

Æ
1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adop ting the revised findings and recommendations of the Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., Unite d States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2746

___________ James Allen Long, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 1, 2008 Filed: October 7, 2008

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. James Allen Long appeals the district court’s 1 judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court gr anted a certificate of appealability on two issues: (1) whether trial counsel was ine ffective for failing to object to the way that the trial court handled the State’ s challenge under Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79-2- (1986), and (2) whether counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for failing to argue that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object. Following our careful review of the reco rd, the briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude the district court properly de nied Long’s petition, fo r the reasons cited in the magistrate judge’s thorough report, adopted by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Long’s pro se motion is denied.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6364-6365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2822]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4589]


Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) Meeting Notice; Closed 
Meeting

    The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State 
Department--Overseas Security Advisory Council on February 24 and 25 at 
the Bechtel Corporation in San Francisco, California. Pursuant to 
Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c) (1) and (4), it has

[[Page 6365]]

been determined the meeting will be closed to the public. Matters 
relative to classified national security information as well as 
privileged commercial information will be discussed. The agenda will 
include updated committee reports, a global threat overview, and other 
discussions involving sensitive and classified information, and 
corporate proprietary/security information, such as private sector 
physical and procedural security policies and protective programs and 
the protection of U.S. business information overseas.
    For more information contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security 
Advisory Council, Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, 
phone: (571) 345-2214.

    Dated: January 20, 2004.
Joe D. Morton,
Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 04-2822 Filed 2-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
### §3762b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3762b was editorially reclassified as section 10172 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas J. Mulligan, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 645]

—Appeal by *256the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered November 24, 1998, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Carey, J.), upon a finding that he violated conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of driving while intoxicated.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARTIN WILLIAM WASHBURN,

Defendant. /

No. 3:09-cr-00862-CRB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST FOR EARLY TERMINATION

OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

The Defendant Martin Washburn having failed to demonstrate any circumstances that

warrant early termination of his term of supervised release, his request (dkt. 375) is hereby

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cr-00862-MHP Document 377 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### § 40.23 Controlled substance traffickers. [Reserved]
#### HARRINGTON, Respondent, v. ERIE R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 11, 1903.)

Action by Carrie Harrington against the Erie Railroad Company.

No opinion. Motion denied.