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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited financial statements dated March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements. Amounts are based on
conversion rate of 1,791 lire to the dollar which prevailed at March 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,875,000
<SECURITIES>                                   533,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,763,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,193,000
<INVENTORY>                                 22,208,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            53,051,000
<PP&E>                                      25,583,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,179,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,278,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       54,077,000
<BONDS>                                      2,323,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,161,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,278,000
<SALES>                                     13,155,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,155,000
<CGS>                                       12,524,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,515,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          (25,971,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             788,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,845,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (288,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,285,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,285,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     2.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.11


</TABLE>
#### § 7.107 New technology.

MSHA may approve a diesel power package that incorporates technology for which the requirements of this subpart are not applicable if MSHA determines that the diesel power package is as safe as those which meet the requirements of this subpart.
### SUBCHAPTER I—TITLE I OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1948

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 87–846, §101, Oct. 22, 1962, 76 Stat. 1107, designated sections 2 to 17 of the War Claims Act of 1948 (act July 3, 1948, ch. 826), as "title I" of the act without supplying a name for such title, which for purposes of codification has been set out as this subchapter.
§ 725.4 Responsibility. ( a ) The Director shall administer the grant program for reimbursement to States for costs of enforcing performance standards during the initial regulatory program.
( b ) The Director or his authorized designee shall receive, review and approve grant applications under this part.
[42 FR 62704, Dec. 13, 1977, as amended at 47 FR 38490, Aug. 31, 1982]
### §2785. Publication of contractor performance evaluations leading to award fees

#### (a) In general

The Administrator shall take appropriate actions to make available to the public, to the maximum extent practicable, contractor performance evaluations conducted by the Administration of management and operating contractors of the nuclear security enterprise that results in the award of an award fee to the contractor concerned.

#### (b) Format

Performance evaluations shall be made public under this section in a common format that facilitates comparisons of performance evaluations between and among similar management and operating contracts.

(Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLVIII, §4805, as added Pub. L. 112–239, div. C, title XXXI, §3117(a)(1), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 2173.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 112–239, div. C, title XXXI, §3117(b), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 2173, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [enacting this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 2, 2013], and shall apply with respect to contractor performance evaluations conducted by the National Nuclear Security Administration on or after that date."
exhibit101






DocuSign Envelope ID: 46EB6CF2-3FE5-4775-B7B9-9C46C098671D 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 46EB6CF2-3FE5-4775-B7B9-9C46C098671D 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 46EB6CF2-3FE5-4775-B7B9-9C46C098671D President and Interim CEO Parker Meeks 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 46EB6CF2-3FE5-4775-B7B9-9C46C098671D 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 46EB6CF2-3FE5-4775-B7B9-9C46C098671D 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 46EB6CF2-3FE5-4775-B7B9-9C46C098671D 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 46EB6CF2-3FE5-4775-B7B9-9C46C098671D
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10127 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus FREDERICK ALLEN KNOX, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CR-254-X

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1996 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Frederick Allen Knox appeals his sentence for conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Knox contends that the district court erred by departing from the guideline sentencing range to sentence him to 60 months’ imprisonment and that the district court failed to explicitly consider and reject sentences in between the guideline sentencing range and the 60-month term.No. 96-10127 - 2 - The departure to 60 months was not an abuse of discretion. Knox’s record of arrests on similar charges, his record of pending charges and disappearances, and his convictions of similar offenses suggest that his criminal history category did not adequately reflect the seriousness of his past conduct and that Knox will commit similar offenses after his release. See United States v. Ashburn , 38 F.3d 803, 807-08 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1969 (1995); United States v. Rosogie , 21 F.3d 632, 634 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s explanation that Knox’s history justified a departure to 60 months was adequate; the court need not have explicitly discussed and rejected each possible sentencing range between the guideline range and 60 months. United States v. Lambert , 984 F.2d 658, 662-63 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martha L. Long, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on

Form 10-KSB/A No. 1

 of National Property Investors 8;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  

February 22, 2008

/s/Martha L. Long

Martha L. Long

Senior Vice President of NPI Equity Investments, Inc., equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership
§ 57.5066 Maintenance standards. ( a ) Any diesel powered equipment operated at any time in underground areas must meet the following maintenance standards: ( 1 ) The operator must maintain any approved engine in approved condition;
( 2 ) The operator must maintain the emission related components of any non-approved engine to manufacturer specifications; and
( 3 ) The operator must maintain any emission or particulate control device installed on the equipment in effective operating condition.
( b ) ( 1 ) A mine operator must authorize each miner operating diesel-powered equipment underground to affix a visible and dated tag to the equipment when the miner notes evidence that the equipment may require maintenance in order to comply with the maintenance standards of paragraph (a) of this section. The term *evidence* means visible smoke or odor that is unusual for that piece of equipment under normal operating procedures, or obvious or visible defects in the exhaust emissions control system or in the engine affecting emissions.
( 2 ) A mine operator must ensure that any equipment tagged pursuant to this section is promptly examined by a person authorized to maintain diesel equipment, and that the affixed tag not be removed until the examination has been completed. The term *promptly* means before the end of the next shift during which a qualified mechanic is scheduled to work.
( 3 ) A mine operator must retain a log of any equipment tagged pursuant to this section. The log must include the date the equipment is tagged, the date the equipment is examined, the name of the person examining the equipment, and any action taken as a result of the examination. The operator must retain the information in the log for one year after the date the tagged equipment was examined.
( c ) Persons authorized by a mine operator to maintain diesel equipment covered by paragraph (a) of this section must be qualified, by virtue of training or experience, to ensure that the maintenance standards of paragraph (a) of this section are observed. An operator must retain appropriate evidence of the competence of any person to perform specific maintenance tasks in compliance with those standards for one year after the date of any maintenance, and upon request must provide the documentation to the authorized representative of the Secretary.
[66 FR 5907, Jan. 19, 2001, as amended at 67 FR 9184, Feb. 27, 2002] Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 66 FR 5907, Jan. 19, 2001, § 57.5066 was added, effective July 5, 2001, except for paragraph (b). At 66 FR 35518, July 5, 2001, the effective date of paragraph (b) was delayed pending disposition of current litigation challenging the rule. At 67 FR 9184, Feb. 27, 2002, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) were revised, effective Mar. 29, 2002.
### §3344a. Training to promote sensible classification

#### (a) Definitions

In this section:

#### (1) Over-classification

The term "over-classification" means classification at a level that exceeds the minimum level of classification that is sufficient to protect the national security of the United States.

#### (2) Sensible classification

The term "sensible classification" means classification at a level that is the minimum level of classification that is sufficient to protect the national security of the United States.

#### (b) Training required

Each head of an agency with classification authority shall conduct training for employees of the agency with classification authority to hold employees accountable for over-classification and to promote sensible classification.

(Pub. L. 118–31, div. G, title VI, §7603, Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 1097.)
#### KAMINSKI, Respondent-Appellant, v. SCHEFER et al., Appellants-Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 23, 1903.)

Action by Esther Kaminski against Carl Sehefer and others. A. Blumenstiel, for appellants-respondents.O. Horwitz, for respondent-appellant.

.No opinion. Judgment and order, affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff respondent.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

            Pursuant  to  section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code),  each of the  undersigned  officers of Brilliant  Digital  Entertainment,
Inc., a Delaware  corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby certify with respect
to Amendment No. 2 to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter  ended  March  31,  2002 as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission (the "10-QSB/A Report") that:

(1)      the 10-QSB/A  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 the 10-QSB/A Report fairly  presents,  in
         all  material  respects,   the  financial   condition  and  results  of
         operations of the Company.





Date:  July 3, 2003                            /s/ KEVIN BERMEISTER
                                               --------------------------
                                                  Kevin Bermeister
                                                  President and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer






Date:  July 3, 2003                            /s/ TYLER TARR
                                               --------------------------
                                                  Tyler Tarr
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37000

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JUSTIN CHARLES BUCHANAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 529

Filed: June 28, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of fifteen years, with 

three years determinate, for trafficking in marijuana, and five years, with two 

years determinate, for delivery of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Elizabeth A. Koeckeritz, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Justin Charles Buchanan was convicted of trafficking in marijuana, Idaho Code § 37-

2732B(a)(1), and delivery of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(a). The district court 

imposed concurrent, unified sentences of fifteen years, with three years determinate, for 

trafficking in marijuana, and five years, with two years determinate, for each of two counts of 

delivery of a controlled substance. Buchanan appeals, contending that the sentences are 

excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well established and 
2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Buchanan’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
Appendix A- Multiple Sit

Averages Supplement

Trajectory analysis results Multip

Sites.
Equations for Different Metrics 

Everyday Residence-time Probability

from all trajectories

total endpoints passing through all grid cells

total endpoints passing through grid celli, j

=

=





=

N

n

N

n EP

ij

ij

High Day Residence-time Probabili

from high day trajectories

total high day endpoints passing th

total high day endpoints passing th

=

=





=

M

m

M

m HP

ij

ij

Incremental Probability

IP

= HP

− EP

Cluster-Weighted Probability

Average pollutant concentration (based on 

associated with cluster i)

( ) Average pollutant concentration (based 

 total number of clusters calculated

( )

1

1

=

=

=





=

∑ ⋅ − ⋅

=

C

C

L

C RP

C EP

C

CWP

i

i

L

i

i
Description of Figures

• Central Trajectory (CT)- Trajectory with the largest number of nearest 

the dataset.

• Frequency Based Clusters- These clusters are formed by finding the “

trajectory which has the greatest number of neighboring trajectories wsubjectively selected radius of proximity (R). These trajectories are thfrom the dataset and the process is applied to the remaining trajectorie

• Proximity Based Clusters- Clustering relies on the frequency-based clu

but forms trajectory groups based on proximity rather than frequency. step, the frequency-based approach is used to identify the central trajerepresent the most populated frequency-based clusters (approximately typically contain at least 98% of the trajectories in the dataset using R=hour back-trajectory (BT) time). These 10 central trajectories are then develop 10 proximity-based clusters by assigning every trajectory in thits nearest central trajectories (calculated back to 72 hours). 

• Incremental Probability- Difference between the everyday probability (

derived from all the trajectories in the dataset) and high day probability derived from trajectories arriving at the site on the subset of high pollu

• Cluster Weighted Probability- Each PATH-derived cluster’s residence-

probability is weighted by the average sulfate (or other pollutant) value measurements corresponding to a trajectory which is a member of thaThe weighted residence-time probability is summed over all clusters ca

a site. The everyday probability is subtracted from the sum of cluster-probabilities to identify areas of increased (or in the case of negative vdecreased) probability of being associated with a meteorological pathwpollutant transport. 
Lyebrook, Mhwk Mt, Acadia 00-04, Avg Inc. Prob. a

IP Based on Top10% Sulfate, CWP calculated using Proximity Based Cluste

Top 10% IP

CWP
Acad, Brig, Lybr All Trajectories 00-04, Average Incremen

IP Based on Bottom 10% Sulfate, 500m

Acadia Brigantine

Lye Brook
Lyebrook, Mhwk Mt, Acadia, Camp Dodge, Moos

00-04, Avg Inc. Prob. and CWP

IP Based on Top10% Sulfate, CWP calculated using Proximity Based Cluste

Top 10% IP

CWP
Brigantine, Shenendoah, Dolly Sods, Great Smokey M

00-04, Avg Inc. Prob. and CWP

IP Based on Top10% Sulfate, CWP calculated using Proximity Based Cluste

Top 10% IP

CWP
#### JARVIS et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN FORCITE POWDER MFG. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court. Appellate Division, First Department.

October 16, 1903.)

Action by Susanna M. Jarvis and others against the American Foreite Powder Manufacturing Company.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Lloyd P. Dodge, Paul Greene and Thomas Keegan, Defendants. The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Lloyd P. Dodge and Kenneth Leeds, Defendants. The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Lloyd P. Dodge, Defendant. The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth H. Leeds, Defendant.

Motions by all defendants for reargument of motions to dismiss indictments and for other relief referred to the court that rendered the decision. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur. Motions denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Third Department,

June, 1963

(June 7, 1963)

#### In the Matter of the Claim of Bencjon Zygler, Respondent, v. Tenzer Coat Co. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Employer and carrier appeal from a disability award contending only that claimant suffered no accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. In reversing the Referee who found no accident, the board determined that a quarrel between claimant, who had a pre-existing condition, and his shop foreman over the distribution of work constituted an accident. Claimant was a sewing machine operator working as a piece worker. On the morning in question while claimant was working at his machine the foreman brought him a bundle of work for the day. Claimant considered it too small and unequal to the work given to some other employees, and a quarrel ensued which involved no physical violence ■ but was entirely oral. Thereafter claimant suffered a cerebral vascular episode which disabled him. The shop foreman testified the argument lasted *“*A few minutes ”, perhaps “ ten minutes ”. The president of the employer company testified that such arguments were a daily occurrence where the work is piece work. Under such circumstances a finding of accident cannot be sustained. *(Matter of Santacroce*v. *40 W. 20th St.,*9 A D 2d 985, affd. 10 N Y 2d 855; *Matter of Cramer*v. *Barney’s Clothing Store,*15 A D 2d 329, affd. 13 N Y 2d 711.) The fact that the cited cases involved heart attacks and this case involved a vascular incident is of no moment. In both situations an injury followed an argument or alleged emotional strain without physical exertion. (Cf. *Matter of Tillander*v. *Latin Quarter Cafe,*9 A D 2d 590.) Award reversed and the claim dismissed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Coon, J. P., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.