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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,047
<SECURITIES>                                    15,450
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,959
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,776)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,157
<PP&E>                                         341,484<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 898,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,153
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           14,430
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (71,529)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   898,303
<SALES>                                         77,645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,645
<CGS>                                           25,551<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    61
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,845)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,696)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,395)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,395)
<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>
### §1513. Importation of water; protection of exporting areas

(a) In the event that the Secretary shall, pursuant to section 1511 of this title, plan works to import water into the Colorado River system from sources outside the natural drainage areas of the system, he shall make provision for adequate and equitable protection of the interests of the States and areas of origin, including assistance from funds specified in this chapter, to the end that water supplies may be available for use in such States and areas of origin adequate to satisfy their ultimate requirements at prices to users not adversely affected by the exportation of water to the Colorado River system.

(b) All requirements, present or future, for water within any State lying wholly or in part within the drainage area of any river basin from which water is exported by works planned pursuant to this chapter shall have a priority of right in perpetuity to the use of the waters of that river basin, for all purposes, as against the uses of the water delivered by means of such exportation works, unless otherwise provided by interstate agreement.

(Pub. L. 90–537, title II, §203, Sept. 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 887.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 90–537, Sept. 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 885, known as the Colorado River Basin Project Act, which enacted this chapter and sections 616aa–1, 620a–1, 620a–2, 620c–1, and 620d–1 of this title, amended sections 616hh, 620, and 620a of this title, and enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 620, 620k, and 1501 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out below and Tables.
#### AMERICAN TRADING CO., Respondent, v. HALL et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 10, 1905.)

Action by the American Trading Company against Alanson S. Hall and others. A. Boskowitz, for appellants. E. R. Greene, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
### §6992j. Effective date

The regulations promulgated under this subchapter shall take effect within 90 days after promulgation, except that, at the time of promulgation, the Administrator may provide for a shorter period prior to the effective date if he finds the regulated community does not need 90 days to come into compliance.

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §11010, formerly §11011, as added Pub. L. 100–582, §2(a), Nov. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2958; renumbered §11010, Pub. L. 105–362, title V, §501(h)(1)(B), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3284.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 11010 of Pub. L. 89–272 was renumbered section 11009 and is classified to section 6992i of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,496
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,260
<ALLOWANCES>                                       558
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,081
<PP&E>                                           3,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,214
<BONDS>                                              8
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,557
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,789
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,449
<CGS>                                            4,227
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,031
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (229)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,496
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,006
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,191
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,490
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        

</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellant,

v.

JONATHAN SILPOT
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 35

[ November 8, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael Lynch , Judge; L.T. Case No. 15

- 14389CF10A

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Kevin J. Kulik, Fort Lauderdale and Ashley D. Kay, Fort Lauderdale, for appell ee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, D AMOORGIAN and C IKLIN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
.; t .. 

SERVED: January 13, 2015 .--- --· 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ALPINE AVIATION, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2014-0863 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

- ,_-

On November 3, 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Complainant") 

filed a Complaint. On October 29, 2014, Alpine Aviation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as 

"Respondent") filed a Request for Hearing. 

On December 30, 2014, Respondent filed a Motion to Withdraw Request for Hearing. 

14 C.P.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney 

may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or 

a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge 

shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, Respondent's Motion to Withdraw Request for Hearing having been read 

and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's Motion to Withdraw Request for Hearing be and is hereby granted; 

and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W 10001 

Max Hansen, Respondent's Counsel 

Max A. Hansen & Associations, P.C. 

P.O. Box 1301 

Dillon, MT 59725 

FAX: 406-683-4304 

ONE COPY 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0863 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
Call on Tuesday Kline, Kelley (GE Indust, ConsInd) to: Monica Shimamura 10/13/2008 04:40 PM Show Details

Follow Up: Normal Priority.
History: This message has been replied to.

Monica,

Thanks again for your call on Friday. We have talked the further information we discussed here internally today, and would like to touch base with you briefly on it tomorrow. We are working on a response that we think will get you what you need, but wanted to run through it quickly with you first. Would you (and anyone else you may need to include) by chance have some time tomorrow around 2:30? If not, if you could perhaps suggest a good time for you all we can try to make it work on this end.

Thanks again,

Kelley

Kelley A. Kline GE Consumer & Industrial Counsel - Regulatory Compliance T 502 452-7603 F 502 452-0947 C 502 403-7840 D *334-7603 E Kelley .Kline@ge.com www.ge.com
Appliance Park, AP2-225 Louisville, KY 40225, USA
This electronic message (including any attached files) is intended solely for the use of the addressee. Since it may contain Confidential Attorney-Client Privileged Communications and Attorney Work Product, any 

### Page 1 of 2 Blank

4/2/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\jarling\Local Settings\Temp\notesB53680\~web6075.htmunauthorized reading, reproduction, dissemination or distribution is prohibited.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender, contact us immediately by telephone collect at (502) 452-7582 and delete the message from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation. 

### Page 2 of 2 Blank

4/2/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\jarling\Local Settings\Temp\notesB53680\~web6075.htm
### §§7271d to 7273a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 7271d, Pub. L. 107–314, div. C, title XXXI, §3143, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2733, which related to requirements for specific funding requests for new or modified nuclear weapons, was renumbered section 4209 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(e)(10), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1759, and is classified to section 2529 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

Section 7272, Pub. L. 96–540, title II, §210, Dec. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 3202, which prohibited the use of funds for purposes related to the licensing of defense activities or facilities of the Department of Energy by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was renumbered section 4103 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(d)(4)(A)–(C)(ii), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1757, and is classified to section 2513 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

Section 7273, Pub. L. 96–540, title II, §211, Dec. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 3203, which related to restrictions on the use of funds to pay penalties under the Clean Air Act, was renumbered section 4722 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(j)(5)(A)–(C)(ii), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1781, 1782, and is classified to section 2762 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

Section 7273a, Pub. L. 99–661, div. C, title I, §3132, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 4063, which related to restrictions on the use of funds to pay penalties under environmental laws, was renumbered section 4721 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(j)(4)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1781, and is classified to section 2761 of Title 50, War and National Defense.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50029 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RAUL LEONEL FOURNIER

- ROBLES, also known as Raul Leonel Fournier , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10

- CR

- 1563

- 3

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Raul Leonel Fournier

- Robles 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). Fournier

- Robles 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

* 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 December 10, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50029 Document: 00515231106 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2019No. 19

- 50029

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leav e to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-50029 Document: 00515231106 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2019
- Primeras Páginas
Título

- Introducción
- Metodología y Datos
- Descripción y Operacionalización de Variables
- Los Modelos de Regresión: Métodos de Estimación e Inferencia y Estrategia de Análisis de los Coeficientes
- Acotaciones Técnico-Metodológicas
- Las Tendencias de la Mortalidad en la Infancia (1960-1990)
- Composición de los Nacimientos Según Categorías de Riesgo
- Riesgos de Mortalidad y Educación Materna: Resultados de la Aplicación de los Modelos de Regresión
- Síntesis y Discusión
- Bibliografía
- Anexo 1 - 16
- Demographic and Health Surveys Working Papers Series

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-02T02:33:52-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
Exhibit 99.2

 

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT**

**REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To the Board of Directors 

Structured Obligations Corporation

New York, New York

 

We have examined the compliance of Structured Obligations Corporation (Depositor) and U.S. Bank National Association (Trustee) with the Base Trust Agreement and the Select Notes Trust Supplement LT 2004-1 (the Agreements) relating to the administration of the underlying securities and related credit support deposited in or held by the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1 for the year ended December 31, 2008.  Depositor's management is responsible for compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with the Agreements based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about Depositor's and Trustee's compliance with those requirements described above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination of Depositor's and Trustee's compliance with specified requirements.

 

In our opinion, Depositor and Trustee complied, in all material respects, with the requirements described above of the Agreements for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of Structured Obligations Corporation, U.S. Bank National Association, and the Certificate Holders of the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1, and is not intended to be, and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties.

 

| /s/ RubinBrown LLP |
|--------------------|

St. Louis, Missouri

February 25, 2009

 

----
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Darrel Walker 

Vice President of Engineering 

Manitowoc Foodservice 

980 S. Isabella Road 

Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858 

JAN 1 9 2018 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Re: Completeness Determination for SNAP Submission for R-290 in Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning 

Dear Mr. Walker: 

Thank you for Manitowoc Foodservice's submission to the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) for R-290 in refrigeration and air conditioning. EPA established the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program to implement section 612 of the Clean Air Act. Your 

application submitted on October 23, 2015 has been reviewed for completeness as part of the 

initial SNAP review. We have found the information to be complete. 

Here is a summary of information concerning your submission: 

Substitute name: R-290 

Sector: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

End-uses: Commercial ice machines 

New or retrofit usage: New equipment only 

Date received: October 23, 2015 

Status of submission: Complete 

lntemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Your submission was complete as of October 23,2015. You may sell or import R-290 in the 

United States in the refrigeration and air condition end-use listed above as of January 21, 2016, 

pending EPA's final decision. Please note that this is not the same as a determination that the 

substitute is acceptable; such a final determination can only be made in a notice or rule published 

in the Federal Register. If you have questions about your submission, please contact me at 

(202) 343-9624 or Wozniak.gcraJd@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Gerald Wozniak 

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction Branch 

Stratospheric Protection Division
J

- S19022

- 17

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

DONALD JAMES STONE : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1657 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered September 13, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 41

- CR

- 0001762

- 2015

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E. and STEVENS, P.J.E. * DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 30, 2017 I respectfully dissent, as I would find Dr. Stone freely volunteered his self

- incriminating statement to Captain Waltman during a break in his interrogation. No question had been put to Dr. Stone when he asked to add to his written statement, as Trooper Wool, who was conducting the investigation, was outside of the prison performing a consent search of Stone’s car at the time. In this regard, Trooper Wool’s request to search Dr. Stone’s vehicle an d the consent search that followed were not the functional equivalent of an interrogation, as neither was likely to elicit an incriminating response from Stone. See United States v. Bustamante , 493 F.3d 879, 892 (7 th Cir. 2007) (holding that “though all i nterrogation must cease once a

________________________________________ ____

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S19022

- 17

- 2

-

defendant in custody has invoked his right to counsel, a request to search a vehicle or home is not likely to elicit an incriminating response and is therefore not interrogation.”). Without questioning, there could have been no response, and Dr. Stone’s statement is, thus, better understood as a spontaneous, voluntary utterance outside the scope of Miranda than it is the product of an interrogation. While the better practice may have been to provide Dr. Stone with Miranda w arnings, the setting was not so inherently coercive to require them. Dr. Stone had been advised that his status as a contracting physician placed him beyond the reach of a Department of Corrections policy subjecting employees to adverse employment decisio ns if they failed to comply with investigations. Captain Waltman also told Stone he was not under arrest and would probably be free to go home by the end of the day. Furthermore, Dr. Stone was an educated person, a physician who was at his place of emplo yment at the time in question, and there is no evidence that Captain Waltman or Trooper Wool engaged in misleading or intimidating tactics designed to elicit an incriminating statement. The facts, therefore, indicate that Dr. Stone offered his self

incrimi nating statement independently of official questioning or conduct such that it should not be subject to suppression. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.