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



<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>                     5





<MULTIPLIER>                                    1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                               35,120
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        37,351
<ALLOWANCES>                                          1,056
<INVENTORY>                                          23,374
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    108,815
<PP&E>                                               53,718
<DEPRECIATION>                                       23,533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      211,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                74,614
<BONDS>                                              37,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                475
<OTHER-SE>                                           86,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        211,955
<SALES>                                             134,286
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    136,014
<CGS>                                                87,784
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       125,394
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        166
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    1,589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       9,031
<INCOME-TAX>                                          4,064
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   4,967
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          4,967
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .11
        


</TABLE>
#### § 960.5 Preclosure guidelines.

The guidelines in this subpart specify the factors to be considered in evaluating and comparing sites on the basis of expected repository performance before closure. The preclosure guidelines are separated into three system guidelines and eleven technical guidelines.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, United States District Judge for

the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE ALVARO AGUILERAMENDOZA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-10332

D.C. No. CR-05-00314-1-FJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 14, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, and MARTINEZ,

District Judge.*** 

FILED

APR 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Contrary to Aguilera’s assertions, the district court informed him that

pleading guilty would constitute a waiver of his right to have the government prove

to a jury the elements of the crime and the amount of the drugs charged in the

indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Thomas, 355 F.3d

1191, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, Aguilera admitted personally supplying the

charged amount of drugs. See United States v. Lococo, 514 F.3d 860, 865 (9th Cir.

2008) (per curiam). Nothing in the record supports his contention that his plea was

“coerced” by the court or the government. 

The district court properly overruled Aguilera’s objection to the pre-sentence

report’s recommended leadership role adjustment, and to the extent Aguilera

objected to its calculation of drug quantity, the district court ruled on that issue as

well when it reaffirmed its conclusion that 38 was the correct base offense level. 

Aguilera did not raise any specific factual disputes regarding either issue that

required resolution by the district judge. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d

988, 1011 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Finally, contrary to Aguilera’s assertion, the district court gave him

sufficient opportunity to allocute. See United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 813

(9th Cir. 2008). Aguilera points to no authority that says the opportunity to

allocute must come at some early stage in the sentencing proceedings. A judge
3

only has to let defendants speak “[b]efore imposing [a] sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P.

32(i)(4)(A). 

Aguilera’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129976 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129976 COA: 253602 Wayne CC: 03-012197-01 CARLOS ISAAC AYALA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 11, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan , lv gtd 472 Mich 881 (2005).

d0221 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.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
§ 75.11 Locations. ( a ) As required by the Additional Protocol, each applicant, licensee, or certificate holder shall submit location information to the NRC as specified in the instructions for DOC/NRC Form AP-1 and associated forms.
( b ) Location information includes: ( 1 ) Nuclear fuel cycle-related research and development information including a general description of the activity and information specifying the physical location of the activity.
( 2 ) Nuclear fuel cycle-related manufacturing or construction information including a description of the scale of operations for the activity.
( 3 ) Uranium and thorium mine and concentration plant information including information on the physical location, operational status, and the estimated annual production capacity and current annual production of the activity.
( 4 ) Impure source material possession information including the quantities, the chemical composition, and the use or intended use of the material (e.g., nuclear or non-nuclear use).
( 5 ) Imports and exports of source material for non-nuclear end uses including the physical location, quantities, chemical compositions, and use of the imported or exported material.
( 6 ) IAEA-exempted and -terminated nuclear material information including information regarding the quantities, uses, and physical location of the nuclear material.
( 7 ) Imports and exports of non-nuclear material and equipment including the physical location, quantity and description of the materials and equipment.
( c ) Information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section must be supplied as specified in the instructions for DOC/NRC Form AP-1 and associated forms. The Information provided on DOC/NRC Form AP-1 and associated forms must be submitted annually. If the information has not changed, a “No change” report must be provided. NRC should also be notified when the activity is no longer performed. The annual report must be submitted by January 31 of each succeeding year after the initial report. The initial report must be submitted no later than 30 calendar days following the date of publication of this rule.
( d ) Information must be provided on the need to manage IAEA access to the location to protect health and safety or to protect classified, proprietary, or other sensitive information, and on other protective measures that should be implemented should an IAEA access be requested.
[73 FR 78611, Dec. 23, 2008, as amended at 83 FR 19611, May 4, 2018]
#### SOLOMON SHAPIRO MFG. CO. v. BLASBERG.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 29, 1915.)

Action by the Solomon Shapiro Manufacturing Company against Jacob Blasberg.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.
Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 1-2 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 1-2 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 1-2 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 3 of 3
PGI 223.405 Procedures.       Departments and agencies must centrally collect information submitted in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.223-9 for reporting to the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment). The information is collected in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS).    **Parent topic:** PGI 223.4 -USE OF RECOVERED MATERIALS
PGI 225.873-2 Procedures.

(1) The Government of the U.K. shall approve waiver of U.K. levies. When an offeror or contractor

identifies a levy included in an offered or contract price, the contracting officer shall provide written

notification to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, ATTN: PSD-PMD, 1111 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-4306, telephone (703) 601-3864. The Defense Security Cooperation

Agency will request a waiver of the levy from the Government of the U.K. The notification shall

include—

(i) Name of the U.K. firm;

(ii) Prime contract number;

(iii) Description of item for which waiver is being sought;

(iv) Quantity being acquired; and

(v) Amount of levy.

(2) Waiver may occur after contract award. If levies are waived before contract award, evaluate the

offer without the levy. If levies are identified but not waived before contract award, evaluate the

offer inclusive of the levies.

Parent topic: PGI 225.873 Waiver of United Kingdom commercial exploitation levies.
#### § 1201.108 Inquiries.

Inquiries regarding Part 1201 should be addressed to the DOT Component making the award, cognizant agency for indirect costs, cognizant or oversight agency for audit, or pass-through entities as appropriate. DOT Components will, in turn, direct the inquiry to the Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Transportation.
§ 74.82 Tests. Each licensee shall perform, or permit the Commission to perform, any tests that the Commission deems appropriate or necessary for the administration of the regulations in this part, including tests of: ( a ) Special nuclear material;
( b ) Facilities where special nuclear material is utilized, produced, or stored; and
( c ) Other equipment and devices used in connection with the production, utilization, or storage of special nuclear material.
§ 50.110 Violations. ( a ) The Commission may obtain an injunction or other court order to prevent a violation of the provisions of— ( 1 ) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( 2 ) Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; or
( 3 ) A regulation or order issued pursuant to those Acts.
( b ) The Commission may obtain a court order for the payment of a civil penalty imposed under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act: ( 1 ) For violations of— ( i ) Sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 82, 101, 103, 104, 107, or 109 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( ii ) Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act;
( iii ) Any rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
( iv ) Any term, condition, or limitation of any license issued under the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
( 2 ) For any violation for which a license may be revoked under section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
[57 FR 55075, Nov. 24, 1992]
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officers of Longs Drug Stores Corporation (the Company) hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 27, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |                                                  
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: June 1, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    WARREN F. BRYANT                          
|                   |  |  |  | Warren F. Bryant                                 
|                   |  |  |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer  
|                   |  | 
|Date: June 1, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    STEVEN F. MCCANN                          
|                   |  |  |  | Steven F. McCann                                 
|                   |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Longs Drug Stores Corporation and will be retained by Longs Drug Stores Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
OSWER/OSRTI Washington, DC 20460



## N ATIONAL 

## P RIORITIES 

## L IST 

## (NPL)

***Proposed Site*** May 2014


### DELTA SHIP

Y ARD Houma
, Louisiana

Terrebonne Parish

 Site Location : The former Delta Shipyard is located at 200 Dean Court in southeastern Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The facility is located in a mixed industrial and residential area south of the city of Houma, Louisiana.

 Site History:
Delta Shipyard was a cleaning and repair facility for small cargo boats, fishing boats, and oil barges. Oily waste from the cleaning process was stored in several unlined earthen pits used as evaporation ponds. These pits were reportedly also used to dispose of oil field drilling material. Delta Shipyard was owned by Delta Ironworks, Inc. The entire property consisted of 165 acres and was home to seven divisions of Delta Ironworks, including Delta Shipyard. During the 1970s and 1980s, the property changed hands through several mergers and sales. In January 2012, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality asked the EPA for assistance in evaluating this si te

.

 Site Contamination/Contaminants:
Wetlands are contaminated with arsenic, antimony, anthracene, barium, benzene, cadmium, chromium, ethylbenzene,fluorene, lead, manganese, mercury, 2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, o-xylene and m,pxylene to the surface water pathway. In addition, three evaporation pits containing greater than 30,000 cubic yards of hazardous material are located in a wetland and may potentially release waste to nearby waterways.

 Potential Impacts on Surroundi ng Community/Environment : Large volumes of waste remain on site, and hazardous substances have been found in ground water, surface water and soil. The closest residential property is located approximately 400 feet west of the open pits. Without remediation of the site, additional releases to ground water, surface water and soil will continue to occur.

 Response Activities (to date): No response actions have taken place.

 Need for NPL Listing:

The site was referred to the EPA in 2012 from the state of Louisiana

. Without listing the site, contamination will

continue to pose a risk to human health and the environment. Other federal and state cleanup programs were evaluated,

but are not viable at this time. The EPA received a letter of support for placing this site on the NPL from the state.

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent
FR notices.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on

the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or by telephone at 1-888- 42 -ATSDR or 1- 888 -422-8737.
AMERICAN AIRLINES 

March 1, 2011 

Esta Rosenberg George Wellington 

Chief, U.S. Carrier Chief, Foreign Carrier 

 Division Licensing Division 

Department of Transportation Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 Washington, D.C. 20590 

 Re: American Airlines/WestJet Codeshare 

 Application (DOT-OST-2011-0040)____

Dear Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Wellington: 

 We have completed our poll of the carrier parties 

served with the American Airlines/WestJet codeshare application of February 28, 2011. There are no objections. 

Accordingly, we request favorable action on an expedited 

basis. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 ____________________________ 

 CARL B. NELSON 

 Associate General Counsel 

 American Airlines, Inc. 

 1101 17th Street, N.W. 

 Suite 600 

 Washington, D.C. 20590 

 (202) 496-5647 

 carl.nelson@aa.com 

cc: Docket Branch 

 Paul Gretch 

 Don Hainbach 

 Service list 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by email 

on the following persons: 

 Delta, Comair sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

 United jeffrey.manley@united.com 

 Continental dan.weiss@coair.com 

 US Airways howard.kass@usairways.com 

 Alaska, Horizon msinick@ssd.com 

 Virgin America john.varley@virginamerica.com 

 Air Wisconsin jhill@dlalaw.com 

 North American, World mlbenge@zsrlaw.com 

 Colgan, Mesaba, Pinnacle bthunt@pncl.com 

 TransStates, Compass, GoJet dhayes@transstates.net 

 Sky West, ASA, ExpressJet gmurphy@crowell.com 

 Shuttle America, Republic prizzi@hoganlovells.com 

                

     ________________________________   

CARL B. NELSON   

March 1, 2011
#### § 960.4-2 Technical guidelines.

The technical guidelines in this subpart set forth qualifying, favorable, potentially adverse, and, in five guidelines, disqualifying conditions on the characteristics, processes, and events that may influence the performance of a repository system after closure. The favorable conditions and the potentially adverse conditions under each guideline are *not* listed in any assumed order of importance. Potentially adverse conditions will be considered if they affect waste isolation within the controlled area even though such conditions may occur outside the controlled area. The technical guidelines that follow establish conditions that shall be considered in determining compliance with the qualifying condition of the postclosure system guideline. For each technical guideline, an evaluation of qualification or disqualification shall be made in accordance with the requirements specified in subpart B.
Adams. Kevin (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Adams, Kevin (OST) 

Sunday, July 03,2011 2:12 PM 

Adams, Kevin (OST) 

Subject: FW: Kodiak Island Area Essential Service bid 

From: Sen. Gary Stevens (mailto:Senator Gary Stevens@legis.state.ak.usl 

Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 4:42 PM 

To: Adams, Kevin (OST) 

Cc: stanford@alaska.com 

Subject: Kodiak Island Area Essential Service bid 

Dear Mr. Adams, 

I am pleased to add my input into the record on Island Air's application for the Kodiak Essential Service Bid. 

As you may know, Island Air has a well-established history of operation on, and familiarization with Kodiak 

Island and its communities. I believe they have the necessary experience and qualifications required of the 

Essential Service contract and encourage you to give their application consideration. 

Thank you for your consideration of this message. 

Sincerely, 

Senator Gary Stevens 

1
#### § 733.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to set forth a general statement of policy on the treatment of allegations of research misconduct consistent with Federal Policy on Research Misconduct established by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76260-76264).
#### § 1108.55 Assistance.

*Assistance* means the transfer of a thing of value to a recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States (see 31 U.S.C. 6101(3)). Grants, cooperative agreements, and technology investment agreements are examples of legal instruments that DoD Components use to provide assistance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond Johnson, Appellant.

Order of August 19, 1968 denying motion for resentence is treated as an application for *coram nobis. (People*v. *Machado,*17 N Y 2d *778440.) The order is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for further proceedings, since the defendant was not advised as to his right to challenge the constitutionality of the prior convictions. Appellant was sentenced as a third felony offender one month before April 10, 1964, the effective date of section 1943 of the former Penal Law which was amended to guarantee a defendant the right to challenge the constitutionality of a prior conviction and to be informed thereof. Defendant was not informed of his said right. Said amendment has been applied retroactively *(People*v. *Jones,*17 if T 2d 404) and hence is applicable to the defendant’s prior convictions. In the instant case, defendant was charged with two prior convictions. Defendant confines his constitutionally based attack to only one of them. The fact that there is an unchallenged and independent basis for the sentence below is not determinative. It has been held that “Despite the fact that the same punishment could be imposed for a second offense as for a third offense, the defendant would, nevertheless, be entitled to be sentenced as a second offender rather than as a third offender.” *(People*v. *Waterman,*11 A D 2d 622; *People*v. *Shaw,*1 N Y 2d 30; *People*v. *French,*5 A D 2d 852; *People*v. *Gifford,*2 A D 2d 642; *People*v. *Begue,*1 A D 2d 289. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Nunez, McNally and Tilzer, JJ.