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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FOR 3-MOS 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000813040
<NAME> GREYHOUND LINES INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           8,706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,914
<ALLOWANCES>                                       375
<INVENTORY>                                      7,880
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,061
<PP&E>                                         561,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                 174,792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 637,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          175,843
<BONDS>                                        171,375
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           33,621
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           587
<OTHER-SE>                                     222,848
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   637,352
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               215,085
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  224,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,587)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,748)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,787)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,787)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Javier Aviles, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 914]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered January 28, 2005, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“In the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 41[d-l]), the Legislature expressed its intent that, with certain exceptions not applicable herein, the ameliorative provisions of the act were not to be applied to crimes committed before the effective date of the act. The defendant’s crime was committed before the effective date of the act. Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s contention that [he] is entitled to the benefits of the ameliorative provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act” *(People v McCray,*27 AD3d 486 [2006]; *see People v Torres,*26 AD3d 398 [2006]; *cf. People v Goode,*25 AD3d 723 [2006]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.
§ 603.215 Recipient's commitment and cost sharing. ( a ) The contracting officer should evaluate whether the recipient has a strong commitment to and self-interest in the success of the project and incorporating the technology into products and processes for the commercial marketplace. Evidence of that commitment and interest should be found in the proposal, in the recipient's management plan, or through other means.
( b ) The contracting officer must seek cost sharing. The purpose of cost sharing is to ensure that the recipient incurs real risk that gives it a vested interest in the project's success; the willingness to commit to meaningful cost sharing is a good indicator of a recipient's self-interest. The requirements are that: ( 1 ) To the maximum extent practicable, the non-Federal parties carrying out a RD&D project under a TIA are to provide at least half of the costs of the project; and
( 2 ) The parties must provide the cost sharing from non-Federal resources unless otherwise provided by law.
( c ) The contracting officer may consider whether cost sharing is impracticable in a given case, unless there is a statutory requirement for cost sharing that applies to the particular program under which the award is to be made. Before deciding that cost sharing is impracticable, the contracting officer should carefully consider if there are other factors that demonstrate the recipient's self-interest in the success of the current project.
2801.604 Contracting Officer's

Representative (COR).

Contracting officers may appoint individuals to act as authorized representatives in the monitoring

and administration of a contract. Such officials shall be designated as a Contracting Officer's

Representative (COR). When a COR is to be designated, contracting officers shall include the clause

at JAR 2852.201-70 in all contracts. A COR's authority is limited to the authority set forth in the

subject clause.

Parent topic: Subpart 2801.6 - Career Development, Contracting Authority, and Responsibilities
§ 1401.605 How are violations of this part determined for recipients who are individuals? An individual recipient is in violation of the requirements of this part if the Director, PAM determines, in writing, that— ( a ) The recipient has violated the requirements of subpart C of this part; or
( b ) The recipient is convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity.
Text of email to me from Professor P. D. Jones of C RU.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:12:22 +0000 From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> To: "wshughes@iinet.net.au" <wshughes@iinet.net.au> Subject: Re: WMO non respondo

Warwick, Hans Teunisson will reply. He'll tell you which oth er people should reply. Hans is "Hans Teunissen" <HTeunissen@wmo.int> .

I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data - which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available t o you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There i s IPR to consider.

You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Austral ia isn't restricted there. Several European countries are. Basically be cause, for example, France doesn't want the French picking up data on France f rom Asheville. Meteo France wants to supply data to the French on France. Same story in most of the others.

Cheers Phil 

# Page 1 of 1 Uncorrected Evidence 35

7/27/2010 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/me mo/climatedat

...
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian E. Schaaf, certify that:

 

1.                                     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2013-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                     Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                     Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                     I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                     All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, as indenture trustee of the issuing entity, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity.

 

Dated March 23, 2016

 
|   | /s/ Brian E. Schaaf                                |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Brian E. Schaaf                                    |
|   | Vice President and   Assistant Treasurer           |
|   | Ford Motor Credit   Company LLC, as Servicer       |
|   | (senior officer in   charge of servicing function) |

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Steve Bogusky, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Sweeney, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 29, 1969, holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits on the ground that he was not totally unemployed. The sole question on this appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support the -board’s findings that claimant was not totally unemployed during the period involved and that he -made willful misrepresentations in order to obtain benefits. It is undisputed that claimant was employed as a building superintendent during the entire period he received benefits. The board was not required to credit his contention that he worked only on Saturdays. *(Matter of Gecaj*[Catherwood], 33 A D 2d 592.) He *872received $50 per month in addition to an apartment. "The question o£ total unemployment is a factual one *(Matter of Vasquenz [Catherwood],*26 A D 2d 859), as is the question of credibility *(Matter of llibassi*[CatherwoodJ, 27 A D 2d 673). It is also undisputed that claimant stated weekly that he was not employed and had done no work. (.See *Matter of Vick*[Catherwood], 12 A D 2d 120.) On this record we must conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the board. Decision affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Sweeney, J.
§ 719.30 In what circumstances may the contractor initiate litigation, including appeals from adverse decisions? ( a ) The contractor must provide written notice to Department Counsel prior to initiating litigation or appealing from adverse decisions.
( b ) The contractor may not initiate litigation for which it seeks reimbursement without prior written authorization of Department Counsel.
( c ) The following information must be provided to Department Counsel by the contractor prior to initiating litigation or appealing an adverse decision: ( 1 ) Identification of the proposed parties;
( 2 ) The nature of the proposed action;
( 3 ) Relief sought;
( 4 ) Venue;
( 5 ) Proposed representation and reason for selection;
( 6 ) An analysis of the issues and the likelihood of success, and any time limitation associated with the requested approval;
( 7 ) The estimated costs associated with the proposed action, including whether outside counsel has agreed to a contingent fee arrangement;
( 8 ) Whether, for any reason, the contractor will assume any part of the costs of the action;
( 9 ) A description of any attempts to resolve the issues that would be the subject of the litigation, such as through mediation or other means of alternative dispute resolution; and
( 10 ) A discussion regarding why initiating litigation would prove beneficial to the contractor and to the Department.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-233-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### Dorothy T. Fales et al., Individually and as Members, Directors and Officers, Respectively, of the Paderewski Foundation, Inc., Appellants-Respondents, v. Edward S. Witkowski et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Order entered on February 4, 1969, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Order entered on February 4, 1969, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Order of February 14, 1969, granted defendants’ motion for a retaxation of costs, unanimously modified on the law and the facts to the extent of allowing the- cost of the preparation of the master sheets and brief *897in connection with the offset process, in the total sum of $81.40, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The procedure in preparing the offset makes this expense a necessary one. Order entered on February 4, 1969, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, Markewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.
#### § 71.131 Nonconforming materials, parts, or components.

The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall establish measures to control materials, parts, or components that do not conform to the licensee's requirements to prevent their inadvertent use or installation. These measures must include, as appropriate, procedures for identification, documentation, segregation, disposition, and notification to affected organizations. Nonconforming items must be reviewed and accepted, rejected, repaired, or reworked in accordance with documented procedures.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>   0000813040
<NAME>  GREYHOUND LINES, INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,173
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                       393
<INVENTORY>                                      8,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,044
<PP&E>                                         581,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                 184,027
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 644,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          203,874
<BONDS>                                        170,022
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,439
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           587
<OTHER-SE>                                     231,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   644,450
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               258,839
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  242,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,870
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,856
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,255
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,712
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,712
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1660-1661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-324]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 12006 and <greek-i> 12007; New 
York Disaster <greek-i> NY-00086

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

[[Page 1661]]


ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New York (FEMA--
1869--DR), dated 12/31/2009.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding Associated with Tropical 
Depression Ida and a Nor'easter.
    Incident Period: 11/12/2009 through 11/14/2009.
    Effective Date: 12/31/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/01/2010.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/01/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 12/31/2009, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Nassau, Suffolk.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      3.625
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 120066 
and for economic injury is 120076.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-324 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
[J-9-2013] [OAJC: Baer, J.] 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee 

 v. 

SHATAAN ADAMS, 

 Appellant 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 58 MAP 2012 

Appeal from the Order of the Superior 

Court entered January 20, 2012 at No. 

2464 EDA 2009, vacating and remanding 

the Judgment of Sentence of the 

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 

Criminal Division, entered July 14, 2009 at 

No. 23 CR-0002312-2008 

ARGUED: September 10, 2013 

CONCURRING OPINION 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CASTILLE DECIDED: November 20, 2014 

 I concur in the result reached by the Court on the basis of my Dissenting Opinion 

in the companion case, Commonwealth v. Molina, __ A.3d __ (Pa. 2014). Because this 

case involves a pre-arrest scenario, in my view, the reference to appellant’s pre-arrest 

silence during the course of the police investigation did not impinge upon his 

constitutional rights, irrespective of whether the prosecution later exploited the 

reference. In the alternative, I agree with Mr. Justice Baer’s explanation of why the 

reference at issue did not implicate the right to silence, even if such a right could be said 

to obtain in the pre-arrest scenario.
#### § 1120.400 Requirement to include a preamble.

Each DoD Component must include a preamble as Subdivision A of each set of general terms and conditions it maintains, to provide information to help recipients understand how to use those terms and conditions.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00166-CR

Anson Dujuan Grissom

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1300504D)

April 30, 2015

Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Sue Walker__________________

 Justice Sue Walker
July 27 , 2015

Mr

. Francisco Jeremias

P.O. Box 567

San Lorenzo, PR 00754

Dear Mr

. Jeremias :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your June 30 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 2598 ),

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the exte nt of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how t he exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process you r request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst , Airm en and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure