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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 1995 and the consolidated statements
of operations and cash flows for the nine months ended December 31, 1995 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000793730
<NAME> NATIONAL
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       3,478,604
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  859,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      63,398,595
<DEPRECIATION>                            (12,137,832)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,749,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     42,672,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,800,309)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,749,496
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,020,626
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,643,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               547,123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,521,051
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,690,549)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,690,549)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

DONALD XAVIER HALE Case No: 3:96CR87-01/RV

USM No: 04049-017

Date of Previous Judgment: April 17, 1997 William R. Clark, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of x the defendant 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 9 the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

9 DENIED. X GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of 240 months is reduced to 234 months .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 36 Amended Offense Level: 35

Criminal History Category: VI Criminal History Category: VI

Previous Guideline Range: 324 to 405 months Amended Guideline Range: 292 to 365 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

9 The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

X The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

9 Other (explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated April 17, 1997 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: July 31, 2008 /s/ Roger Vinson 

Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Roger Vinson, Senior United States District Judge

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 3:96-cr-00087-RV Document 39 Filed 07/31/08 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DIRECTV INC,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cv-00085-MP-AK

BRENT DIAMOND,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 40, Stipulation of Dismissal and request for Court

to enter an order dismissing the case against Mr. Diamond. Previously, in doc. 37, the Court

entered an order pursuant to a notice of settlement. The order dismissed the case against Mr.

Diamond with prejudice but retained jurisdiction for 60 days to ensure that settlement was

effected. Within the 60 days, the plaintiff filed a motion (doc. 38) to reopen the case and enforce

the settlement agreement, arguing that Mr. Diamond had not complied with the terms of an oral

settlement agreement. Before the Court could rule on that motion, however, the parties filed doc.

40, a stipulation of dismissal signed by both sides, which requested that this court dismiss the 

Case 1:03-cv-00085-MP-AK Document 41 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:03-cv-00085-MP-AK

claims against Mr. Diamond with prejudice and which did not request the Court to retain

jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The motion to reopen the case (doc. 38) is granted, for the limited purpose of

entering the dismissal with prejudice requested in the stipulation of dismissal

signed by both sides (doc. 40).

2. This case is dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk is directed to close this file

and the Court will not retain jurisdiction.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of October, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-00085-MP-AK Document 41 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2355 

To require the purchase of domestically made flags of the United States 

of America for use by the Federal Government. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2013 

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. KING of 

New York, Mrs. BUSTOS, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. EDWARDS, Mr. CICILLINE, 

Mr. RAHALL, Mr. LIPINSKI, and Mr. LOBIONDO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require the purchase of domestically made flags of the 

United States of America for use by the Federal Government. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘All-American Flag 

5 Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2355 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR PURCHASE OF DOMESTICALLY 

2 MADE UNITED STATES FLAGS FOR USE BY 

3 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

4 Only such flags of the United States of America, re5 gardless of size, that are 100 percent manufactured in the 

6 United States, from articles, materials, or supplies 100 

7 percent of which are grown, produced, or manufactured 

8 in the United States, may be acquired for use by the Fed9 eral Government. 

10 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

11 Section 2 shall apply to purchases of flags made on 

12 or after 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 

13 Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Paul J. Cornell, certify that:1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Quintana Maritime Limited. 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions); a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.         By:                                                       /s/ Paul J. Cornell    Paul J. Cornell    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   Date: November 9, 2006
Case 3:99-cr-00078-RV   Document 173   Filed 11/30/06   Page 1 of 1
# L_2020406EN.01006701.xml

| 3.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 406/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 406/67

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1536 of 22 October 2020 of implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/796 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 351 I of 22 October 2020
  )

On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 1, in the title:

for:

‘Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1536 of 22 October 2020 of implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/796 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States’,

read:

‘Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1536 of 22 October 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/796 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States’.

---
149 So.2d 766

#### CATTLE FARMS, INC. et al. v. James S. ABERCROMBIE et al.

No. 46537.

Feb. 8, 1963.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal, send up' the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant he notified.
Letter
of Confirmation of Related Party Loans


 


Party A: Universal Solar Technology, Inc.
(including its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Kuong U Science & Technology (Group) Ltd. and Nanyang Universal Solar Technology
Co., Ltd. (“NUST”))


Party B: Ling Chen


 


Whereas:


1. Party A is a public company
trading on OTC BB;


2. Party B is Director of Party
A;


 


Party A and Party B agree that all loans
provided by Party B to Party A shall be due on December 31, 2016. All loans provided by Party B to Party A will bear interest at
the interest rate of 3.50% per annum. Party A can make payment of accrued interest when its cash flow circumstance allows.


 


Party A: Universal Solar Technology, Inc.


/s/ Wensheng Chen


 


Party B: Ling Chen


/s/ Ling Chen
September 20, 2016

Exemption No. 12918A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–2388

Mr. Matthew Roderick

Matthew Roderick dba Rapid Aerial LLC

10721 Blackhawk Drive

Boise, ID 83709

Dear Mr. Roderick:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter dated posted to the public docket on July 21, 2016, you petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Matthew Roderick dba Rapid Aerial LLC

(hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your current exemption. That 

exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 

91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) 

and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to conduct 

UAS operations. You requested an amendment to change the company name from Matthew 

Roderick to Matthew Roderick dba Rapid Aerial LLC.

1

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. 

 

1 The petitioner also requested to add aircraft. At this time, the FAA is unable to act on this request. When the 

FAA is ready to act, we will proceed accordingly and no further action will be required by the petitioner.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 12918

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 

granted an amendment to change the operator name.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Matthew Roderick dba Rapid Aerial LLC is hereafter referred to 

as the operator. All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 12918 remain 

in effect. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

This exemption terminates on September 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
PUBLIC LAW 109–189—MAR. 20, 2006 120 STAT. 297

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2894:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 151 (2005): July 25, 26, considered and passed House.

Vol. 152 (2006): Mar. 3, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–189

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 102 South

Walters Avenue in Hodgenville, Kentucky, as the ‘‘Abraham Lincoln Birthplace

Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

102 South Walters Avenue in Hodgenville, Kentucky, shall be

known and designated as the ‘‘Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Post

Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Abraham

Lincoln Birthplace Post Office Building’’.

Approved March 20, 2006.

Mar. 20, 2006

[H.R. 2894]
Exhibit 32.2

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 MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 2, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Krakauer, Executive Vice President, Strategic Operations, and Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:

(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/ Robert J. Krakauer                                                     
|Robert J. Krakauer                                                         
|Executive Vice President, Strategic Operations, and Chief Financial Officer
|May 15, 2006                                                               

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:19cv3546-TKW-HTC 

UNKNOWN,

Defendants.

/

OR D E R

This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 4). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were 

filed. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, I agree with the magistrate 

judge’s determination that the complaint is frivolous and that the myriad of defects 

in the complaint are incurable. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. The complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.

3. The Clerk shall close the case file.
2

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of October, 2019.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EXHIBIT 4.17



Sales Contract on Pelletizing Iron Concentrate



|                                                       |                          
|------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------
|The Seller: Wuhu Feishang Mining Development Co., Ltd. | Contract No.: FSK15-02   
|The Buyer: Fanchang County Jinfeng Mining Ltd.         | Signed at: Fanchang, Wuhu



Based on friendly consultations, the seller and the buyer reached to the following agreement on the sales of iron concentrates:

1.

The seller provided the appropriate monthly quantity of products to the buyer and the price was based on monthly negotiation, i.e. marketing price.

2.

The place of delivery was in the pounds room of Yangchong yard. The sold quantity was settled based on the weighing list of the seller, and the buyer could send its representative to supervise the weighing.

3.

The seller together with the buyer took the samples from the yard of the seller. The sample was triplicate, one for each party and another for arbitration. The test results would be subjected to the seller. If there was any discrepancy, the buyer could put forward to arbitration. The arbitration was Maanshan Mining Research Institute.

4.

Payment was in advance and then delivery. The price was based on 65% of Total Fe (TFe). If TFe65% rose 1%, the price was plus CNY30/T, while declining 1%, the price reduced CNY30/T.

5.

The seller should ensure that TFe was equal 65%, sulfur (S) was less than or equal 1.0%, silica (SiO2”) was less than or equal 3.5%, phosphorus (“P”) was less than or equal 0.1%, and -200 mesh was more than or equal 68%. If S≤1.0% rose 0.01, the price reduced CNY0.1/T. If -200 mesh ≥68% declined 1%, the price reduced CNY5/T.

6.

Payment was in advance and then delivery.

7.

The seller provided 17% value-added-tax invoice to the buyer and the settlement was on a month basis.

8.

The outstanding issues not set out in the contract was settled based on both parties negotiation.

9.

The terms of the contract was from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.



The Buyer

Names of The Buyer: Fanchang County Jinfeng Mining Ltd.

Legal Representative: Gui Jingyu

A/C with Bank:

Address:

A/C no:

Tax ID no.: 340222781075696

Zip Code:

Tel: (0553)7253858

/s/ Gui Jingyu



The Seller

Names of The Seller: Wuhu Feishang Mining Development Co., Ltd.

Legal Representative: Xu Chengyin

A/C with Bank: ICBC Fanchang Branch

Address: Xiaokeshan, Xingang, Fanchang ,Wuhu

A/C no: 1307027009022122696

Tax ID no: 340222738937836

Zip Code: 241202

Tel: (0553)7337509

/s/ Yang Houdao



Signature Date: January 1, 2015