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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1997
<CASH>                                      28,800,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               77,596,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (2,131,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 97,910,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           234,735,000
<PP&E>                                     565,749,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             120,035,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             849,922,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      132,638,000
<BONDS>                                    510,995,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       146,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  93,700,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               849,922,000
<SALES>                                    154,539,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           154,539,000
<CGS>                                      115,998,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              115,998,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               313,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,259,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,953,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (3,400,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,553,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,553,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.41 Applicable law. This section provides the existing law governing liability, measurement of liability and the effects of settlement upon awards. ( a ) *Federal preemption.* Many of the exclusions in this subpart are based upon the wording of 28 U.S.C. 2680 or other federal statutes or court decisions interpreting the Federal Tort Claims Act. Federal case law interpreting the same exclusions under the Federal Tort Claims Act is applied to the Military Claims Act. Where state law differs with federal law, federal law prevails. ( b ) *Extent of liability.* Where the claim arises is important in determining the extent of liability. ( 1 ) *Applicable law.* When a claim arises in the United States, its territories or possessions, the same law as if the claim was cognizable under the FTCA will be applied. ( 2 ) *Claims in foreign countries.* In claims arising in a foreign country, where the claim is for personal injury, death, or damage to or loss of real or personal property caused by an act or omission alleged to be negligent, wrongful, or otherwise involving fault of military personnel or civilian officers or employees of the United States acting within the scope of their employment, liability or the United States is determined according to federal case law interpreting the FTCA. Where the FTCA requires application of the law of the place where the act or omission occurred, settlement authorities will use the rules set forth in the currently adopted edition of the *Restatement of the* Law, published by the American Law Institute, to evaluate the liability of the Air Force, subject to the following rules: ( i ) Foreign rules and regulations governing the operation of motor vehicles (rules of the road) are applied to the extent those rules are not specifically superseded or preempted by United States military traffic regulations. ( ii ) Absolute or strict liability will not apply for claims not arising from noncombat activities. ( iii ) Hedonic damages are not payable. ( iv ) The collateral source doctrine does not apply. ( v ) Joint and several liability does not apply. Payment will be made only upon the portion of loss, damage, injury or death attributable to the Armed Forces of the United States. ( vi ) Future economic loss will be discounted to present value after deducting for federal income taxes and, in cases of wrongful death, personal consumption. (c) *Claims not payable.* Do not approve payment for: ( i ) Punitive damages. ( ii ) Cost of medical or hospital services furnished at the expense of the United States. ( iii ) Cost of burial expenses paid by the United States. ( d ) *Settlement by insurer or joint tortfeasor.* When settlement is made by an insurer or joint tortfeasor and an additional award is warranted, an award may be made if both of the following are present: ( 1 ) The United States is not protected by the release executed by the claimant. ( 2 ) The total amount received from such source is first deducted. [81 FR 83692, Nov. 22, 2016]
#### BETHANIA TOWN LOT COMMITTEE v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM

No. 402PA97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 783

Notice of appeal by plaintiffs pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question) retained 2 October 1997. Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 2 October 1997.
Order filed December 1, 2022.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 22

- 00346

- CR

____________ JOSE TRINIDAD TORRES , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County, Tex as Trial Court Cause No. 20

- CR

- 2794



### ABATEME NT ORDER
The trial court failed to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement. Article 38.22, section 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law as to whether a challenged statement was made voluntarily, even if appellant did not request them or object to their absence. Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. art. 38.22 6; Urias v. State , 155 S.W.3d 141, 142 (Te x. Crim. App. 2004).The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abate

the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions.
See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State , 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex . Crim. App. 1987).
Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the c le rk of this
Court on or before January 2 , 202 3

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations ar e filed in this Court. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
#### In the Matter of Calvin Hennigar, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[833 NYS2d 422]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H. Dadd, A.J.], entered November 20, 2006) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. Present—Gorski, J.E, Martoche, Centra, Lunn and Green, JJ.
Exhibit
23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm
  We consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Registration Statement (No. 333-141526, 333-121922,
333-112679, 333-83504) on Form S-8 and
Registration Statements (Nos. 141581, 144635, 151514, 152413) on Form
S-3 of Composite Technology Corporation of our reports dated
December14, 2009, relating to our audits of the
consolidated financial statements, the financial statement schedules and
internal control over financial reportingwhich appear in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Composite
Technology Corporation for the year ended September 30,
2009.
 
 Our report dated December14, 2009, on the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2009, expressed an opinion
that Composite Technology Corporation had not maintained effective internal
control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2009, based on criteria
established inInternal Control —
Integrated Frameworkissued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO).




/s/SINGERLEWAK
      LLPSingerLewak
      LLPIrvine,
      CaliforniaDecember14,
2009
#### Hollis *et al. vs.*Saulsbury, Respess *&*Company.

[Warner, Chief Justice, being engaged in presiding over the senate organized as a court of impeachment, did not sit in this case.]

The sheriff levied a mortgage/, *fa.*upon corn of defendant, having in his hands no other execution against defendant; it was sold as perishable property by order of the ordinary under section 3648 of the Code, and bid in by the defendant in *fi.fa.,*and knocked off to him. An agreement was then made between defendant and the sheriff, that if defendant would pay up the principal, interest, and costs on the mortgage/./®., he should have the corn, otherwise the agent of plaintiffs in the mortgage execution who was the next highest bidder, was-to have if at his bid; defendant paid off the - mortgage/, *fa.*and took the corn. On a rule against the sheriff by the plaintiffs in the mortgage/./®., which was returnable to Sumter superior court and to a term not yet held, older executions claimed the proceeds of the corn in the sheriff’s hands:

*Held,*1. That the court of the county of the sheriff had jurisdiction to rule him, though the mortgage /. *fa.*was returnable to á subsequent term of another county. *#*

2. That the lien of the older judgments not in the sheriff’s hands was not divested by the sale and agreement between the sheriff and the defendant in execution; that the corn was still liable to be sold at their instance, and that the money was properly paid to the mortgage fi.fa. 56 *Ga.,*383; 17 *Ib.,*187.

Jackson, Justice.
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20202

TO: Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Authority to Designate a Department Employee to Serve as the Designated Federal 

Officer for the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity 

I. DELEGATION

By the authority vested in me by Section 412 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 

U.S.C. § 3472, I hereby delegate to you, or anyone serving for you in an acting capacity or 

delegated to perform the functions and duties of your position, the authority to designate a 

Department employee to serve as and carry out the duties of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) 

for the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), as set forth 

in 41 C.F.R. §§ 102-3.25 (definition of the term “Designated Federal Officer”), 102-3.105(i), and 

102-3.120 and Sections 1009(e) and (f) of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10 (Federal Advisory Committees). 

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the existing authorities 

delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation. 

II. RESERVATIONS

Unless otherwise noted in existing or future delegations of authority, the following is not 

delegated: 

The authority to appoint six NACIQI members and to fix the compensation of all NACIQI

members. 

III. REDELEGATION

Subject to the requirements of law, you may redelegate any of the authority delegated to you in 

this delegation and authorize further redelegation. Any redelegation must be done in accordance 

with the Administrative Communications System directive, ACSD-OFO-015, Delegation of 

Authority, dated August 26, 2016. 

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE 

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal Delegations Control 

Officer. I ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of 

certification.

______________/s________ 

Miguel A. Cardona, Ed.D. 
OGC Clearance: /s/ Lauren Friedrich, 02/09/2023

Date Certified: 2/15/23

Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens

Control Number: EA/EP/404
### §§1006c to 1006e. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §341(a), Aug. 8, 1961, 75 Stat. 318

Section 1006c, act July 22, 1937, ch. 517, title I, §16, as added Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 633, §1, 69 Stat. 553; amended Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 829, §1(h), 70 Stat. 802, provided for additional insurance of loans, mortgages and other security, lien, definitions of mortgage, insured mortgage, mortgagor and mortgagee, conversion to insured loan and rights of holder of insured note.

Section 1006d, act July 22, 1937, ch. 517, title I, §17, as added Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 829, §1(i), 70 Stat. 802; amended Sept. 21, 1959, Pub. L. 86–332, 73 Stat. 599, related to loans for refinancing indebtedness on farms of not more than family size and restrictions and limitations thereon.

Section 1006e, act July 22, 1937, ch. 517, title I, §18, as added Aug. 25, 1958, Pub. L. 85–748, §1(a), 72 Stat. 840, related to authorization of Secretary for execution, insurance and sale of loans, interest, insurance, appraisal and delinquency charges, computation of aggregate amount of principal obligations which may be insured, insurance of loans from funds advanced by lenders other than United States, provisions applicable to loans, conversion of loans to insured loans, expense funds, sale of loans on noninsured basis and assignment of loans.

For subject matter of sections 1006c to 1006e of this title, see section 1921 et seq. of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective one hundred and twenty days after Aug. 8, 1961, or such earlier date as the provisions of section 1921 et seq. of this title are made effective by regulations of Secretary of Agriculture, see section 341(a) of Pub. L. 87–128, set out as a note under section 1921 of this title.

Sections repealed effective Oct. 15, 1961, by former section 300.1 of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, see Effective Date note under section 1921 of this title.
Cityof 

Dodge City RTMENTOF 

^ •-^NoPORiATION 

CITY HALL ::'Hr OPERATIONS 

P.O. Box 880 

Dodge City, KS 67801-0880 -•.,!:</-, . A n. -^ r 

Phone: 620/225-8100 ii i ''-^J i l^ A i- U J 

FAX: 620/225-8144 

TTY: 620/225-8115 

www.dodgecity.org 

August 5, 2011 

Dennis DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Essential Air Service 

Dodge City, Kansas 

Docket # OST-1998-3502 

In response to the Department's Order Requesting Proposals regarding Essential Air 

Service to the western Kansas communities, please be advised that the City Commission 

of the City of Dodge City, Kansas has voted 3 to 2 to recommend the continuation of 

Essential Air Service at Dodge City by Great Lakes Airlines in accordance with it's most 

recent proposal. 

Sincerel); 

Ken'Strobel 

City Manager 

w
p. 1 of 2

From: Dorey, Garr E. [ mailto:Garr.Dorey@alcoa.com ] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:43 PM To: Putney, David Cc: Palazzolo, Michael A.; Bishop, Kathy L. Subject: Wenatchee Works Primary Aluminum Testing I CR Update

Mr. Putney,

During a review of the Primary Aluminum Testing IC R data,
it was discovered that the Potline Roof Monitor emi ssions for EPA Method 315 (POM's) and EPA Method 29 (Metal s) were calculated and reported on the individual room upon which the testing was performed. However, each line is m ade up of two rooms. Therefore, the results were reported as half
of the actual emissions. Attached are the correct ed
emission calculations for the above noted. Please note that the Particulate Matter (PM) data for these sit es was reported correctly and unchanged. I apologize for any inconvenience.

The updated files are below:

EPA Method 29 Room 6 (Line 1) - This will replace " Line 1 Roof Monitor M29.pdf" in folder 8 of the original
submission.

EPA Method 29 Room 20 (Line 5) - This will replace "Line 5 Roof Monitor M29.pdf" in folder 8 of the original
submission.

EPA Method 315 Room 6 (Line 1) & Room 20 (Line 5) - This will replace "Method 315 Summary.pdf" in folder 8 o f the original submission.p. 2 of 2

Again, I apologize for any inconvenience and please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Garr Dorey Environmental Specialist

Alcoa Wenatchee Works
509-667-4502
#### 1034.001 Definitions.

As used in this part—

*Development, Modernization, Enhancement (DME)* is the portion of an IT investment/project which deals with developing and implementing new or enhanced technology in support of an agency's mission.

*Major acquisitions for development* are defined as contracts, awarded in support of one or more Major IT investments with DME activities, which meet the contract threshold for fully applying FAR 34.2 procedures.

*Performance-based acquisition management* means a documented, systematic process for program management, which includes integration of program scope, schedule and cost objectives, establishment of a baseline plan for accomplishment of program objectives, and use of earned value techniques for performance measurement during execution of the program. A performance-based acquisition (as defined in FAR 37.101) or an acquisition with a defined quality assurance plan that includes performance standards/measures should be the basis for monitoring the contractor.

[76 FR 42057, July 18, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 11596, Mar. 4, 2015]
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Esterline Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 1, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Robert W. Cremin,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                          |  |  |  |     |  |                                                
|------------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Dated:  September 5, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert W. Cremin                           
|                          |  |  |  |     |  | Robert W. Cremin                               
|                          |  |  |  |     |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
----

|   | 1. | The                  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the period ended                  December                  31, 2005, (the "Annual Report"), fully complies with the requirements                  of                  Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of                  1934, as                  amended; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                  information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in                  all                  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                  of                  the Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: | March                  29, 2006 |
|--------|---------------------------------|

| /s/                  Paul O. Koether                   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Paul                  O. Koether                       |   |
| Chairman                  and Chief Executive Officer  |
|                                                   |   |
|                                                   |   |
| /s/                  Sue Ann Merrill                   |   |
| Sue                  Ann Merrill                       |   |
| Chief                  Financial Officer and Secretary |

----
### §493. Enforcement of provisions; prosecution of cases

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to enforce this chapter. It is made the duty of all United States attorneys to prosecute cases arising under this chapter, subject to the supervision and control of the Department of Justice.

(Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 309, §2, 44 Stat. 1355.)
#### In the Matter of Susan R. Ricco and Another, Infants. Frances Ricco, Appellant; Department of Public Welfare, Nassau County, Respondent.

In a proceeding to adjudicate the above-named infants to be neglected children, the infants’ mother appeals from an order of the Children’s Court, Nassau County, dated January 22, 1962 and entered February 2, 1962, which denied her motion: (a) to require the Department of Public Welfare, Nassau County, to grant her reasonable and regular visitation of the infants; and (b) to amend a previous order of said court, dated June 5, 1961, so as to provide her with reasonable and regular visitation of the infants. Order reversed on *955the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Children’s Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In our opinion, the order dated June 5, 1961, granting the mother visitation rights subject to the supervision of the Department of Public Welfare, did not empower the latter, within its sole discretion, arbitrarily to deny her visitation when she elected to exercise her visitation rights. However, since the welfare of the infants is the primary consideration, a hearing should be held and, on the basis of the facts adduced at such hearing, an appropriate order may then be made defining the mother’s right of visitation. A decision setting forth specific findings of fact should first be made and incorporated as a part of the record; the order should be based on such findings. Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Babin, JJ., concur.
p. 1 

# RCRA Box 1883 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 1 ) ll-B-162 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/3/200810:42:09AM

Sheet 1 of 171P. 2 

# A-90-1 9 ll-B-16 2 

# PENDIN GCONFIDENTIA ]



# JjJLf l

Th e followin g informatio ni s locate d i nth e confidentia l file s o f th e Director , Emissio nStandard s Division , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g and Standards , U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 . Thi s informatio ni s confidentia l pendin g fina l determinatio nb yth e Administrato r and i s no t availabl e fo r publi c inspection . W . Floyd , Radia n Corporation , t o Proces s Vent s Docke t A-90-19 , Decembe r 1991 , HO NNESHAP : Industr y Characteristics/Dimethylamine . 1 2 pages . CB I Documen t Contro l No . 86/23 , PPS-162 .