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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         288,382
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  553,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,157,234
<PP&E>                                       2,752,846
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,927,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,004,945
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         62
<COMMON>                                        81,903
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,989,641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,927,506
<SALES>                                        972,363
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               972,363
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,694,021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (721,658)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (274,230)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (447,428)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (447,428)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
5209.570-2 Policy.

(c)(2) Submit the required written determination for approval with a copy of the approved AS,

STRAP, or MOPAS-S by the SECDEF/USD(AT&L) via DASN(P) by email at RDAJ&As.fct @navy.mil

with the subject “[Activity Name] DFARS 209.570-2 - D&F to Use a Contractor to Perform Lead

System Integrator Functions.”

Parent topic: Subpart 5209.5 - ORGANIZATIONAL AND CONSULTANT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
#### In the Matter of Susan Baba, Appellant, v Martin Evans et al., Respondents.

Submitted September 10, 2007;

decided November 15, 2007

Reported below, 2007 NY Slip Op 73889(U).

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### David M. Windhurst, Respondent, v Town of Thompson, Defendant, and County of Sullivan, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 6, 1980 in Sullivan County, which denied defendant County of Sullivan’s motion for a change of venue and granted plaintiff’s cross motion. Plaintiff is a paraplegic as a direct consequence of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in the Town of Thompson, Sullivan County. This action, alleging the municipalities negligently, carelessly and *931recklessly created an unsafe highway condition, was commenced in Westchester County where plaintiff presently resides in a rehabilitation hospital. The defendant County of Sullivan moved to change the venue of the action to Sullivan County and plaintiff cross-moved to retain venue in Westchester County. Special Term denied defendant’s motion and granted the cross motion stating that plaintiff’s grievous injuries would cause great hardship if he were required to travel to and reside in Sullivan County during the trial of the action. Defendant Sullivan County appeals. While it is generally true that if a county defendant, as here, follows the special “demand” procedure of CPLR 511 (subd [b]) and either with or before the service of the answer serves on plaintiff a written demand that venue be changed to the proper county and moves for such relief within 15 days after receipt of plaintiff’s response to such demand such relief will be granted, it does not follow that such relief is judicially compelled or the court is foreclosed from considering the discretionary grounds for change or retention of venue set out in CPLR 510 (Siegel, New York Practice, pp 151,152). Since plaintiff is a resident of Westchester County and hospitalized there, we cannot say Special Term abused its discretion in denying Sullivan County’s motion and granting plaintiff’s cross motion on the ground of convenience of witnesses. In addition to the hardship that would be imposed on a paraplegic party who would be forced to travel to and reside in a foreign county, many of the hospital records and treating specialists reside in Westchester County. Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Response to Comments:

A. The Baltimore Serious Area Attainment Demonstration Modeling Is Inadequate 

to Demonstrate Attainment of the NAAQS Because 2012 Monitored Data Shows 

Multiple Exceedances of the NAAQS 

It is the EPA responsibility to determine the adequacy of a SIP. In doing so, the EPA can 

utilize a variety of tools including monitoring data from the AQS. MDE is required to 

submit a SIP that contains an attainment modeling demonstration and fulfill reasonable 

further progress goals. MDE utilized the EPA approved CMAQ model to complete the 

bump up ozone SIP and while attainment was not achieved, MDE does feel it is 

important that the plan be submitted to EPA as it shows that reasonable further progress 

emission reductions were achieved through 2012. These reductions were enough for 

CMAQ to model attainment.

B. The Baltimore Serious Nonattainment SIP Is Inadequate to Demonstrate that the 

Area Will Reach Attainment Because the Measures it Contains Are Fully 

Implemented and Have Not to Date Resulted in Attainment of the 1997 Ozone 

NAAQS; Additional Measures Are Required 

As part of their review of the SIP, EPA may require MDE to implement additional 

control measures or provide another SIP reflecting a new “severe” nonattainment status. 

Additional measures will be required to meet a new nonattainment status or to attain the 

tougher 2008 ozone standard. MDE continues to seek emission reduction programs for 

inclusion in SIPS through regional processes like the OTC, stakeholder comments, and 

continually review of technological advances. MDE appreciates the ideas and concepts 

offered by the commenter as means to further reduce emissions in Maryland. 

C. MDE Can Achieve Additional Controls by Requiring Short-Term Limits and 

Cost-Effective Pollution Controls for Coal-Fired Power Plants in the Baltimore 

Nonattainment Area 

As with the response to item B above, MDE continues to examine all possible emission 

reduction strategies. One is a possible restructure tightening of the Maryland Healthy Air 

Act as a means of providing for further NOx reductions from the power sector in 

Maryland.

D. Maryland Should Pursue Long-term Contracts for Renewables and Enhanced 

Energy Efficiency Targets Under EmPOWER Maryland As a Pathway to Reducing 

Emissions of Ozone Precursors in the State 

MDE is actively reviewing multi pollutant type planning whereas climate and energy 

policies provide for Ozone or other NAAQS benefits. MDE invites the commenter to 

offer similar suggestions as provided to the Maryland Energy Administration during the 

review and stakeholder process for the EmPOWER program.
DoT-osT-wvsi-^sr 

Chamber of Commerce 

Economic Development 

Tourism 

www.dickinsonchamber.com 

600 South Stephenson Avenue Iron Mountain, M 49801 Phone: 906-774-2002 Fax 906-774-2004 

April 26, 2010 

To: Dennis Devany, Chief, EAS Chief, and USDOT 

Kay Pascoe, Dickinson County Controller 

Tim Howen, Ford Airport Manager 

From -—I : Bruce Orttenburger ^ ^ 

President & CEO ' '^ o 

Dickinson Area Partnership 

Re: Air Service Proposals for Ford Airport, Dickinson County, Michigan 

Having reviewed the Essential Air Service (EAS) proposals being considered for serving 

Dickinson County's Ford Airport, I offer the following comments for consideration; 

The Dickinson Area Partnership, which represents over 480 businesses in the Dickinson 

area business community, feel that it's essential that to promote economic development, 

business expansion, and retention, that our area should t>e served by safe, reliable and 

exceptional air service to accommodate their customers, vendors and open up new 

markets. The current program with Mesaba Airlines provides that service, especially with 

having two major hubs at both Minneapolis and Detroit. 

Their current proposal; now operating as the Delta Connection with a three-service option, 

utilizing 34-passenger Saab 340 aircraft and having 21 round trips weekly, will be a 

wonderful opportunity for our business community. Therefore, this proposal is the 

recommended choice to provide service for our area. Thank you for the opportunity to 

respond to these proposals.
#### § 923.12 Handler.

*Handler* is synonymous with shipper and means any person (except a common or contract carrier transporting cherries owned by another person) who handles cherries.
Part 5230 - COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION       Subpart 5230.2 - CAS PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS                                                         5230.201 Contract requirements.                                                                           5230.201-5 Waiver.                                                                                                           5230.202 Disclosure requirements.                                                                           5230.202-2 Impracticability of submission.    Subpart 5230.2 - CAS PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS     5230.201 Contract requirements.     5230.201-5 Waiver.    (b) and (d) Submit waiver requests to DASN(P) at          least 60 days prior to anticipated contract award by email at usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject          “[Activity Name] DFARS 230.201-5 – CAS Waiver Request.” Include the estimated date of          contract award.       (e) Submit reports via DASN(P) no later than          November 15 by email at usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject          “[Activity Name] DFARS 230.201-5(e) – Granted CAS Waivers Report.”5230.202 Disclosure requirements.     5230.202-2 Impracticability of submission.    Submit requests for impracticability          determinations to DASN(P) at least 60 days prior to anticipated contract award by email at             usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject          “[Activity Name] DFARS 230.202-2 – Impracticability Determination.” Include the estimated          date of contract award.
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 49 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 49 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 49 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 4 of 4
§ 900.16 Ex parte communications. ( a ) At no stage of the proceeding following the issuance of a notice of hearing and prior to the issuance of the Secretary's decision therein shall an employee of the Department who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of the proceeding discuss ex parte the merits of the proceeding with any person having an interest in the proceeding or with any representative of such person: *Provided,* That procedural matters and status reports shall not be included within this limitation; and *Provided further,* That an employee of the Department who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of the proceeding may discuss the merits of the proceeding with such a person if all parties known to be interested in the proceeding have been given notice and an opportunity to participate. A memorandum of any such discussion shall be included in the record of the proceeding.
( b ) No person interested in the proceeding shall make or knowingly cause to be made to an employee of the Department who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of the proceeding an ex parte communication relevant to the merits of the proceeding except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) If an employee of the Department who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of the proceeding receives or makes a communication prohibited by this section, the Department shall place on the public record of the proceeding: ( 1 ) All such written communications;
( 2 ) Memoranda stating the substance of all such oral communications; and
( 3 ) All written responses, and memoranda stating the substance of all oral responses thereto.
( d ) Upon receipt of a communication knowingly made or knowingly caused to be made by a party in violation of this section, the Department may, to the extent consistent with the interest of justice and the policy of the underlying statute, take whatever steps are deemed necessary to nullify the effect of such communication.
( e ) For the purposes of this section, *ex parte communication* means an oral or written communication not on the public record with respect to which reasonable prior notice to all interested parties is not given, but which shall not include requests for status reports (including requests on procedural matters) on any proceeding.
[42 FR 10833, Feb. 24, 1977]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2839 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2839

      To reduce temporarily the duty on certain footwear for men.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 18, 2006

 Mr. Brownback introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To reduce temporarily the duty on certain footwear for men.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOOTWEAR FOR MEN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.13.91      Other footwear      4.5%         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         with uppers of                                                     31/2009
                         vegetable fibers,
                         for men (provided
                         for in subheading
                         6405.20.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 932.12 Size.

*Size* means the number of whole olives contained in a pound and may be referred to in terms of size ranges.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2010

s0322 

# Order

March 29, 2010

140019

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140019 COA: 285640 Macomb CC: 2 007-003158-FC WILLIAM AERRON BRADY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Editorial Note on Part 782
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 782 appear at 61 FR 32643, June 25, 1996.

§ 782.10 Identification of commodities subject to end-use certificate regulations. ( a ) The regulations in this part are applicable to wheat and barley, respectively, imported into the U.S. from any foreign country, as defined in 19 CFR 134.1, or instrumentality of such foreign country that, as of April 8, 1994, required end-use certificates for imports of U.S.-produced wheat or barley.
( b ) Because Canada is the only country with such requirements on wheat, and no country has an end-use certificate requirement for barley, only wheat originating in Canada is affected by the regulations in this part.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3287 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3287

 To suspend temporarily the duty on wide-range high sensitivity color 
                     zoom digital security camera.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2006

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on wide-range high sensitivity color 
                     zoom digital security camera.

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

SECTION 1. WIDE-RANGE HIGH SENSITIVITY COLOR ZOOM DIGITAL SECURITY 
              CAMERA.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.85.25        Wide-range high         Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           sensitivity high                                                  31/2009          ''
                           resolution color zoom                                                               .
                           digital security
                           camera module with
                           360 viewing radius
                           and custom designed
                           digital signal
                           processor (DSP) chip
                           for automatic focus
                           functions; 380,000 to
                           470,000 pixels image
                           sensor, optical lens
                           zoom power 10x and
                           16x magnification
                           (provided for in
                           subheading
                           8525.30.90)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Stephen H. Powers et al., Respondents, *v.*George Benedict, late Sheriff, etc., Appellant.

(Argued April 30,1884;

decided May 9, 1884.)

*Ed/min K. Pisley*for appellant.

*William Kernam,*for respondents.

Agree to affirm ; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 151 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 151 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 151 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 151-2 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 151-2 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 151-2 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 151-2 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 151-2 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 5 of 5
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3291 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3291

            To suspend temporarily the duty on ice shavers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2006

   Mr. Allen introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To suspend temporarily the duty on ice shavers.

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

SECTION 1. ICE SHAVERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.85.13        Ice shavers (provided   Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           for in subheading                                                 31/2009          ''
                           8509.40.00)..........                                                               .

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:06-cv-00674-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00674-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 2 of 2
§ 932.53 Inspection and certification. ( a ) Each handler shall have the olives such handler handles inspected and certified as for conformance with all applicable requirements pursuant to §§ 932.51 and 932.52 with respect to such handling. Inspection and certification for conformance with the requirements of § 932.51 shall be by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service, including certification as to size, and inspection for conformance with the requirements of § 932.52 shall be by the Specialty Crops Inspection Division, USDA, except that the disposition of olives, other than as canned ripe olives, in accordance with the requirements of § 932.51(a)(3) may be under the supervision of any of such inspection services. A copy of each certification by the said inspection services, pursuant to the provisions of this section, shall be furnished to the committee.
( b ) The committee may enter into an agreement with either or both of said inspection services with respect to the costs of the inspection required by this section and may collect from handlers their respective pro rata share of such costs.
[30 FR 12629, Oct. 2, 1965, as amended at 47 FR 32910, July 30, 1982; 88 FR 82233, Nov. 24, 2023]