alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

| (1)   | The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                            |  /s/      Matthew K. Rose          |                                                 |   |   | /s/     Thomas N. Hund           |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Matthew K. Rose                                 |                                                                                                               | Thomas N. Hund                                       |   |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |                                                                                                               | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

Form 10-Q

----

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         395,120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  640,124
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    153,192
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,204,944
<PP&E>                                         741,675
<DEPRECIATION>                                 535,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,497,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,330,601
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           80,450
<PREFERRED>                                     28,266
<COMMON>                                       118,470
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,060,095)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,497,294
<SALES>                                        859,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               859,100
<CGS>                                          826,828
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  826,828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,352,891
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             126,572
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,447,191)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       450
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,447,641)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,447,641)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)

        

</TABLE>
#### 1532.102 Description of contract financing methods.

Progress payments based on a percentage or stage of completion are authorized for use as a payment method under EPA contracts or subcontracts for construction and alteration or repair of buildings, structures, or other real property.

[60 FR 38505, July 27, 1995]
#### Ballon, Stoll & Itzler, Respondent, v First Adjusters, Inc., as Successors to Signature Records, Inc., et al., Appellants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 14, 1978, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellants $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The time to serve answers to the interrogatories is extended to 20 days after service of a copy of the order of this court, with notice of entry. No opinion. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.
#### 1442.602 Assignment and location.

The BPC has the authority to approve the appointment of a Corporate Administrative Contracting Officer.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1231

DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM C. GRIFFIN, JR., Senior Resident Judge; PHILIP W. TOELKES, Trial Court Administrator; CHARLES E. SIMPSON, JR., Attorney; THE LAW FIRM OF HARRIS, SHIELDS AND CREECH; DEBRA TURNER, Assistant Clerk of Superior Court; C. C. HENDERSON, Town Attorney, Town of Trenton, North Carolina; JOFFREE T. LEGGETT,Mayor; EDWARD EUBANKS, Town Councilman; WILLARD O. LEWIS, Town Councilman; CHARLES JONES, Town Councilman; C. GLENN SPIVEY, Town Clerk; NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; DONALD STILLEY, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance; ABBOTT MEADOWS, Vice President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Mu tual Insurance; EDGAR MILLS, Secretary, North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance; MICHAEL SHEPERD, Treasurer, North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance; HARVEY ROUSE, JR., Board of Directors; ALVA HOWARD, Board of Directors; ROOSEVELT MURRELL, Board of Directors; C. W. ADAMS, Board of Directors; KEITH METTS, Board of Directors; SAM DAVIS, Board of Directors; LEROY MEADOWS, Board of Directors; LARRY JONES, Board of Directors; their agents, employees and successors. All defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities; TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees.2Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-96-152-BO)

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997
Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Giles Meacham, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Robert Strong Shields, Jr., Charles E. Simpson, Jr., Thomas Edward Harris, HARRIS, SHIELDS & CREECH, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief onhis civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Willis v. Griffin , No. CA-96-152-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 1997). We deny Willis's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      18,051,347
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               34,181,503
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,791,056
<INVENTORY>                                 45,390,195
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           115,825,045
<PP&E>                                       9,390,213
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,443,044
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             185,419,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,221,315
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    976,755
<COMMON>                                       144,457
<OTHER-SE>                                 163,053,947
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               185,419,719
<SALES>                                    188,740,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           188,740,735
<CGS>                                      130,047,733
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              130,047,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            57,602,101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             154,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,170,183
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,769,469
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,400,714
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,400,714
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15


</TABLE>
#### 1846.670-5 Forms.

An electronic copy of the DD Form 250 may be downloaded from the General Services Administration's Forms Library at *http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/100000.*

[80 FR 12945, Mar. 12, 2015]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS ON PAGES 3 - 8 OF THE COMPANY'S
DECEMBER 31, 1998 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

       
<CAPTION>

<S>                           <C>
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                               5525
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                       48776
<ALLOWANCES>                          933
<INVENTORY>                           447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    77972
<PP&E>                             440720
<DEPRECIATION>                     114905
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     444320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              101605
<BONDS>                            263819
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0 
<PREFERRED>                             0 
<COMMON>                              720
<OTHER-SE>                          25793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       444320
<SALES>                             86540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    86540
<CGS>                               49649
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       74744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     (782)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   6805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      5773
<INCOME-TAX>                         2425
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  3348
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                         3348
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        5.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                        5.08
        


</TABLE>
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Meeting Documentation for Telephone Calls on October 9 and November 12, 2009 with 3M RepRegarding Fluorinated Gas ProductionDates: October 9, 2009 and November 12, 2009Staff Contact Information (Name, email, phone #): Deborah Ottinger, EPA, 202-343-9149, Ottinger.deborah@epa.gov; Karen Schaffner, RTI, ksschaffner@rti.org; Carrie RicName of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible):

3M: Brian Mader, Jeff Muffat, Dana Schnobrich, Mike Parent, Tom Herzberg, Mike Nash, Karl Warren, Mike Felco, Pat S

Holly Khasi. 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.):The purpose of the conference call was to discuss emission estimation techniques and analytical methods available to measemissions. 3M representatives noted that they develop emission factors based on process vent testing, material balances, an

principles. The costs of such development vary depending on the type of measurement or calculation and on the nature of tnumber of streams. 3M invests a lot of effort to understand what’s going into reactors. They concentrate on active ingredients and side reaction

This is emphasized from laboratory to pilot to plant. They analyze all streams, using GC/MS and NMR. Early analysis hemass-balance. This is part of the development of the process. To analyze emissions, 3M begins by using FTIR. This reveals all infrared absorbers. Although smaller constituents get swwith FTIR. Results are available right away. GC/MS is used next. Can separate out everything and use mass spectroscopy for unknowns. 3M has sampled streams for varying lengths of time. If harvesting results from historic tests (e.g., for permits), they rely on These occur at steady state operations; analysts usually got same results within 20 minutes. 3M has used continuous FTIR 

monitored one process (a significant emission source) for 3 months. 3M retests processes that undergo significant changes. They pay attention to yields and will retest if there’s a shift in off-gincreases emissions, they will revisit EF. However, decreases in the EF might not be checked so quickly. Repeated testing of different processes over several years has shown emission factor variations of 13 to 30 percent within s

variations probably occur because the processes are tweaked to improve yields. A yield shift of 10 percent may be signific

because less (or more) product is being emitted or because less (or more) by-product is being generated. 3M tracks critical depending on the process, e.g., condenser temperature, purity measurements, percent going to feeds. 
Written Comments Provided? No.

Did they also submit to Docket? No. Date sent to EPA- CCDNone
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

There are no questions and answers here yet. Updated or outdated questions and answers will be published here for a historical record. 

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
Case: 1:12-cv-01555 Document #: 4 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:7
#### Anna Cozzins, Respondent, v. Harry Boyland et al., Defendants, and Hannah Leifer, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Hannah Leifer appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 3, 1960, conditionally granting her motion to dismiss the complaint as against her for lack of prosecution. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROSEBUD FARMSTAND, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-cv-9147

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff's motion to execute and enter memorandum of judgment [366] is denied. In the 

federal courts, final judgments entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 are 

entered on a specific form, the AO-450. See Selective Ins. Co. v. City of Paris, 769 F.3d 501, 

507 (7th Cir. 2014). The final judgment in this case [339] was entered in conformity with that 

procedure. Execution on a money judgment is covered in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69, 

and the Court is not aware of any role that a "memorandum of judgment" such as that requested 

by Plaintiff might play in carrying out the procedures referenced in Rule 69. Notice of motion 

date of 9/6/2017 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date.

Dated: September 5, 2017

 __________________________________

Robert M. Dow, Jr.

United States District Judge
# March FOIA Log
###### Editorial Note on Part 1553

#### Editorial Note:

Forms referenced in part 1553 do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

#### 1553.232-73 EPA Form 1900-6, Contractor's Release.

As prescribed in 1532.805-70(d), the EPA Form 1900-6 must be submitted by the Contractor under cost-reimbursement contracts prior to final payment thereunder.
#### Bunker Ramo Corporation, Appellant, v Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondent.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 28, 1978 denying petitioner taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment, is unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion is granted and summary judgment is directed in favor of petitioner as demanded in the notice of motion dated February 8, 1978. This case is indistinguishable from *Quotron Systems v Irizarry*(66 AD2d 687), in which this court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the taxpayer. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Lane, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.
January 29, 2010

MEMORANDUM

TO: Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161

SUBJECT: GREET Model Spreadsheets Used in the Lifecycle Analysis

This memorandum accompanies four spreadsheets placed on the docket of Version 1.8c.0 

of the GREET model as used in the lifecycle analysis for the final rulemaking. The 

spreadsheets were used to estimate greenhouse gas emissions associated with the 

transport of sugarcane feedstock, the transportation and distribution of domestic and 

imported ethanol, production of agricultural inputs (fertilizers and chemicals), and 

electricity production. Results were input into separate impact calculation spreadsheets 

that are also available on the docket. 

Below is a summary of modifications that were made in each spreadsheet from default 

values in GREET. For more information about these assumptions and the use of the 

GREET model to calculate lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for the final rulemaking 

refer to RIA Chapter 2.

1. GREET1_8c_0_electric.xls

 No changes made to domestic, Brazil based on marginal mix as described 

in the RIA

2. GREET1_8c_0_ethanol_transport.xls

 T&D GQ109 = 0

3. GREET1_8c_0_Fertilizer.xls

 No changes, results just summarized for average production emissions

4. GREET1_8c_0_sugarcane_transport.xls

 T&D AE7 = 42

 T&D B41–B42 = 3.8

 T&D_Flowcharts F1377 = 19
M. P. No. 75-25.

#### In re Dennis R. Surprenant.

*Dennis R. Surprenant,*petitioner, pro se. *Francis A. Monti,*for Board of Bar Examiners.

Petition of Dennis R. Surprenant for review of denial of admission to the Rhode Island bar on motion is granted. The matter is assigned to the calendar for March 3, 1975 for oral argument.
Mark McKinnon

Dentons US LLP

1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

- 4832

United States

email: mark.mckinnon@dentons.com

T 703.336.8808

F 703.336.8750 Salans FMC SNR

Denton

McKenna Long

dentons.com

November 15

, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Amendment to Petition for Exemption of Acuity Mutual Insurance Company

( Docket No

. FAA

- 2015

- 4623 )

To Whom it May Concern:

As you are aware, this o ffice represents Acuity Mutual Insurance Company (Acuity)

regarding the above

- referenced Petition for Exemption

. Acuity hereby requests an amendment

to its Petition for Exemption to add an additional aircraft, the 3D Robotics Solo

.

I. De scription of Proposed Operations

Acuity seeks to amend its Exemption to add the aircraft listed above for use in support of

its aerial data collection activities

.

I I

. The Proposed UAS Operations Meet the Requirements of Section 333 of the Reform

Act

A. Ap proval is Warranted Based on the UAS's Size, Weight, Speed, and

Operational Capability

The FAA has already ruled that the listed aircraft meet all of the criteria set forth in

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Accordingly, all of the

requirements to ope r ate these vehicles been satisfied and the petiti on is suitable for a summary

grant.

3D Robot ics Solo : See

, Exemption No. 1 3338 to Kestral UAV, Docket FAA

- 2015

- 3417;

Exemption No. 13279 to Dobbs Administrations (13279) , Docket FAA

- 2015

-

3231

.

A s this is an amendment to an existing exemption seeking the addition of a supplementary UAS model that is substantially similar to the one currently authoriz ed for use

under the Ex emption, Acuity respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not

need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.November 15, 2015

Page 2 Salans FMC SNR Dento n

McKenna Long

dentons.com

III. The Requested Amendment is in the Public Interest

The above listed UAS offer substantial safet y benefits for aerial data collection o ver

conventional operations using helicopters or fixed wing aircraft.

If you have any questions regarding this amendment, or require any additional

information to process this Petition, please do not hesitate to con tact us.

Very Truly Yours,

Mark E. McKinnon

Counsel for Acuity Mutual Insurance Co.
#### Anthony Barbero, Appellant, v. City of New York et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on March 7, 1962, denying plaintiff a preference under rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the matter remanded to Special Term for further consideration, with leave to plaintiff to file an affidavit of merit. Plaintiff, presently about 80 years of age, has suffered three coronary attacks, and the affidavit of plaintiff’s physician states unequivocally his opinion that plaintiff is unlikely to survive a long delay in this case coming to trial. This combination of age and uncontroverted medical proof of plaintiff’s physical condition would seem to warrant the granting of a preference *(Dodumoff*v. *Lyons,*4 A D 2d 626) if the other requisite, an affidavit of merit, were supplied. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
0 

0 

LSI Medience Corporation 

1 

COPY OF THE ORIGINAL 

KUMAMOTO LABORATORY 

LSI MEDIENCE CORPORATION 

ITUIWIIIRiiCTOIII U. 

DATE: /2, 2o/f' 
0 

0 

2 
0 

0 

3 
0 

0 

4 
0 

Final page 33 

0 

5 
0 

0 

6 
0 

0 

7 
0 

0 

8 
0 

0 

9 
0 

0 

10 
0 

0 

11 
0 

0 

12 
0 

0 

13 
0 

0 

14 
0 

0 

15 
0 

0 

16 
0 

0 

17 
0 

0 

18 
0 

0 

19 
0 

0 

20 
0 

0 

21 
0 

0 

22 
0 

0 

23 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

"' N 
0 

0 
0 

0 

00 

N 


0 

-

"' 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

33