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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                             816
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1251
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       2315
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  7451
<PP&E>                                          179368
<DEPRECIATION>                                   54592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  140920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            19636
<BONDS>                                          43587
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                       77559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    140920
<SALES>                                         130262
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                130262
<CGS>                                            32307
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   127006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1987
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1269
<INCOME-TAX>                                       432
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                837
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       837
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
Reported Emissions and Product Content

Table 1. Reported Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from U.S. Operations

Company Sixth

Reporting 

Year 

Chemical 

Category

Emissions Product Content

Releases to all 

media from FP 

and Telomer 

Manufacturing

(kg)

kg of 

release / kg 

of product 

produced

Dispersions

(ppm wetweight basis)

Other 

Fluoropolymers

(ppm dry-weight 

basis)

Telomers 

(ppm dryweight basis, 

unless stated 

otherwise)

Asahi 2011

PFOA, PFOA 

salts and 

Higher 

Homologues

0

Not 

Applicable 0 0

Not 

Applicable

Precursors Not Applicable
Table 2. Reported Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from Non U.S. Operations

Company Sixth

Reporting 

Year 

Chemical 

Category

Emissions Product Content

Releases to all 

media from FP 

and Telomer 

Manufacturing 

(kg)

kg of 

release / kg 

of product 

produced

Dispersions

(ppm wetweight basis)

Other 

Fluoropolymers

(ppm dry-weight 

basis)

Telomers 

(ppm dryweight basis, 

unless stated 

otherwise)

Asahi 2011

PFOA, PFOA 

salts and 

Higher 

Homologues

237

For FP 

Production: 

< 1 kg / 100 

kg

Not 

Applicable 0.08

Negligible 

compared to 

precursors

Precursors 468

For Telomer 

Production: 

< 1 kg / 100 

kg

Not 

Applicable Not Applicable

Average 

50% (range: 

0-100%)
Reported Percent Reductions in Emissions and Product Content

Table 3. Reported Percent Reductions in Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from

U.S. Operations

Company

Sixth

Reporting 

Year 

Chemical 

Category

% Reduction in Emissions % Reduction in Product Content

% Reductions in total 

quantity of chemical(s) 

released from baseline year

Fluoropolymer 

Dispersions

Other 

Fluoropolymers

Telomer based 

products

Asahi 2011

PFOA, 

PFOA salts 

and Higher 

Homologues

100% 100% 100% Not Applicable

Precursors Not Applicable
Table 4. Reported Percent Reductions in Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from 

Non U.S. Operations

Company

Sixth 

Reporting 

Year 

Chemical 

Category

% Reduction in Emissions % Reduction in Product Content

% Reductions in total 

quantity of chemical(s) 

released from baseline year

Fluoropolymer 

Dispersions

Other 

Fluoropolymers

Telomer based 

products

Asahi 2011

PFOA, 

PFOA salts 

and Higher 

Homologues

98% 100%

PFOA content in 

this product is 

negligible as 

compared to that 

in dispersions

Negligible as 

compared to 

precursors

Precursors 88% Not Applicable Not Applicable 88%
Accomplishment Table

Company Facilities Reductions 

Emissions Product Content

US 100% 100%

Non-US 95% 88%

Global 96% 88%
MEDIATION REFERRALS

The following cases have been referred to mediation pursuant to S.CtPrae.R. XIV(6):

2006-2056.

#### State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equipment Operators’ Labor Council v. Cleveland.

In Mandamus. Referred for resolution of the pending motion for attorney fees.
Exhibit 32.2

 

Certification of Chief FINANCIAL OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Jason Roos, the Chief Financial Officer, in connection with the Annual Report of Logan Ridge Finance Corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

 

Date: March 14, 2022

 

|        |                                 |        |  |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|--|
|   |                            |   |
|   | /s/ Jason Roos                  |
|   | Jason Roos                      |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer         |   |
|   | (Principal Financial Officer)   |   |
|   | Logan Ridge Finance Corporation |   |

 

----
§ 422.3 Inquiry, investigation, and adjudication. A research institution that conducts extramural research funded by USDA bears primary responsibility for prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of research misconduct allegations reported directly to it. The research institution must perform an inquiry in response to an allegation, and must follow the inquiry with an investigation if the inquiry determines that the allegation or apparent instance of research misconduct has substance. The responsibilities for adjudication must be separate from those for inquiry and investigation. In most instances, USDA will rely on a research institution conducting extramural research to promptly: ( a ) Initiate an inquiry into any suspected or alleged research misconduct;
( b ) Conduct a subsequent investigation, if warranted;
( c ) Acquire, prepare, and maintain appropriate records of allegations of extramural research misconduct and all related inquiries, investigations, and findings; and
( d ) Take action to ensure the following: ( 1 ) The integrity of research;
( 2 ) The rights and interests of the subject of the investigation and the public are protected;
( 3 ) The observance of legal requirements or responsibilities including cooperation with criminal investigations; and
( 4 ) Appropriate safeguards for subjects of allegations, as well as informants (see § 422.6). These safeguards should include timely written notification of subjects regarding substantive allegations made against them; a description of all such allegations; reasonable access to the data and other evidence supporting the allegations; and the opportunity to respond to allegations, the supporting evidence and the proposed findings of research misconduct, if any.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          54,267
<SECURITIES>                                    41,095
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,454
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,376)
<INVENTORY>                                        437
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               169,062
<PP&E>                                          28,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,416)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 283,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,854
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                     153,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   283,914
<SALES>                                        178,608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,608
<CGS>                                           62,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                95,453
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,550
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,210
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,758
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,452
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,452
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
        

</TABLE>
#### § 960.3-2-2 Nomination of sites as suitable for characterization.

From the sites identified as potentially acceptable, the Secretary shall nominate at least five sites determined suitable for site characterization for the selection of each repository site. For the second repository, at least three of the sites shall not have been nominated previously. Any site nominated as suitable for characterization for the first repository, but not recommended as a candidate site for characterization, may not be nominated as suitable for characterization for the second repository. The nomination of a site as suitable for characterization shall be accompanied by an environmental assessment as specified in section 112(b)(1)(E) of the Act. Such nomination shall be based on evaluations in accordance with the guidelines of this part, and the bases and relevant details of those evaluations and of the decision processes involved therein shall be contained in the environmental assessment for the site in the manner specified in this subpart. The evidence required to support such evaluations and siting decisions is specified in § 960.3-1-4-2.
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 6, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41722

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

JULIO ZUNIGA-ZUNIGA,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-600-ALL 

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

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julio Zuniga-Zuniga appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien present in

the United States following a prior deportation for an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)

& (b). Zuniga’s waiver-of-appeal provision does not bar this appeal because the record reflects
 

that the magistrate judge who administered Zuniga’s plea erroneously described the waiver-ofappeal provision. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(N).

Zuniga argues that the district court erred in assigning a 16-level increase to his offense

level based upon a prior conviction for second degree assault that occurred in Kentucky. This

issue is reviewed de novo as Zuniga raised it in the district court. See United States v. Villegas,

404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005).

The Government concedes that the district court erred in assigning the 16-level increase

because the record does not conclusively establish that the prior conviction qualifies as a “crime of

violence” under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)(Nov. 2004). Accordingly, Zuniga’s sentence is

vacated and remanded.

Zuniga also argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in sentencing

him using and unconstitutional mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime in violation of United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 739 (2005). Zuniga’s argument will not be addressed in light of this

court’s remand for resentencing. See United States v. Southerland, 405 F.3d 263, 270 (5th Cir.

2005).

VACATE and REMAND.
Exhibit
10.2


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE

TO THE

OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT LETTER BETWEEN CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY LP AND
RAYMOND I. WILCOX


 


WHEREAS,
Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP (the “Company”) and Raymond I. Wilcox
executed a certain Offer of Employment Letter, dated February 8, 2006 (the
“Employment Letter”);


WHEREAS,
the Company and Mr. Wilcox desire to amend the Employment Letter;


NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,


1.               Effective
February 8, 2006, the first paragraph of Page 2 of the Employment Letter is
amended by the addition of the following sentence at the end:


The Termination Bonus shall be paid in a lump
sum as soon as administratively practicable following termination of
employment; but in no event later than March 15 of the calendar year immediately
following the calendar year in which said termination of employment occurred.


As so amended, the
Employment Letter will remain in full force and effect.


 


 


	
  Chevron
  Phillips Chemical Company LP

  	
   

  	
  Raymond I.
  Wilcox

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Don F. Kremer

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Raymond I. Wilcox

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Vice President, Human Resources

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  President, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
  August 1, 2006

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
  August 1, 2006
38519.

#### FRANKLIN ACCEPTANCE, INC. v. SALTER.

Decided November 29, 1960.

*Iíenry J. Refieman,*for plaintiff in error.

*John F. Hardin,*contra.

*743Bell, Judge.

The motion for a new trial here is based solely on the general grounds.

The plaintiff, by agreement of the parties, introduced into evidence a letter signed by its president and treasurer which set forth two exhibits listing payments by the defendant on the note, plus credits issued by the plaintiff to the defendant for merchandise returned, which exhibits also showed the method by which the plaintiff had credited these to the defendant’s accounts. The brief of evidence shows that there were indisputably at least three different notes in the accounts between the parties, and, as we interpret the evidence, the credits which the defendant introduced into evidence were in some cases applied to notes other than the one involved in the present action. All of the checks, totaling $690, listed in the brief of evidence, which were introduced by the defendant, appear to have been credited in full on the note sued on. While the amount of other credits evidenced by credit memoranda issued by the original payee of this note to the defendant totaled $2,635.54, the undisputed evidence of the plaintiff shows that about $1,018.92 of these credits was applied to other obligations which the defendant owed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had the right, so far as appears from this record, to allocate the credits issued to the defendant or payments made by the defendant to any of the several debts which were owing between the parties. *Code*§ 20-1006 provides in part, “When a payment is made by a debtor to a creditor holding several demands against him, the debtor has the right to direct the claim to which it shall be appropriated. If he fails to do so, the creditor has the right to appropriate at his election.” The record does not disclose that the debtor defendant directed that any of the payments made or credits issued be appropriated to any particular note. Accordingly, the plaintiff had the right to elect, as he apparently did, to apply the payments or credits to any of the claims held by him.

From the brief of evidence submitted to this court, there appears to be no evidence whatsoever to support the verdict for the sum of $173.25. Further, there is in the brief of evidence nothing of probative value to prove specifically payments or *744items of credit which should have been applied against the note other than those which were so applied. From the examination of the record, it appears that the verdict and judgment applied credits to the note here sued on which the plaintiff appears to have applied to other obligations of the defendant. The judgment being contrary to the evidence, it is accordingly

*Reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.*
§ 1.612 What competency and capacity must an accreditation body have to qualify for recognition? An accreditation body seeking recognition must demonstrate that it has: ( a ) The resources required to adequately implement its accreditation program, including: ( 1 ) Adequate numbers of employees and other agents with relevant knowledge, skills, and experience to effectively evaluate the qualifications of third-party certification bodies seeking accreditation and to effectively monitor the performance of accredited third-party certification bodies; and
( 2 ) Adequate financial resources for its operations; and
( b ) The capability to meet the applicable assessment and monitoring requirements, the reporting and notification requirements, and the procedures of this subpart, if recognized.
# EUR-Lex - 31992D0010 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31992D0010

**92/10/EEC: Council Decision of 19 December 1991 postponing the date on which the national provisions applying Directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks are to be put into effect **

*
Official Journal L 006 , 11/01/1992 P. 0035 - 0035 Finnish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 22 P. 0003 Swedish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 22 P. 0003 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 19 December 1991 postponing the date on which the national provisions applying Directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks are to be put into effect (92/10/EEC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1), and in particular Article 16 (2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas, pursuant to Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/104/EEC, Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive not later than 28 December 1991;

Whereas pursuant to Article 16 (2) of that Directive, on a proposal from the Commission, the Council, acting by qualified majority, may defer the date referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article until 31 December 1992 at the latest;

Whereas this exceptional provision was included in the said Directive to ensure, if necessary, that the date of the putting into effect of the national provisions applying the Directive should, as far as possible, be aligned with the date as from which it would be possible for Community trade mark applications to be filed;

Whereas the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community trade mark (1) has not yet been adopted; whereas it is expected that the said Regulation will be adopted shortly;

Whereas it seems therefore appropriate to postpone until 31 December 1992 the date provided for in Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/104/EEC, so that the objective referred to above may be the more easily pursued;

Whereas the objectives set for the completion of the internal market continue to be respected notwithstanding this postponement,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The date set in Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/104/EEC shall be replaced by 31 December 1992.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 19 December 1991. For the Council

The President

P. DANKERT

(1) OJ No L 40, 11. 2. 1989, p. 1. (2) OJ No C 351, 31. 12. 1981, p. 1 and OJ No C 230, 31. 8. 1984, p. 1.
Subpart 1851.2—Contractor Use of

Interagency Fleet Management System

(IFMS) Vehicles

Parent topic: PART 1851—USE OF GOVERNMENT SOURCES BY CONTRACTORS

1851.205 Contract clause.

When the clause at FAR 52.251–2 is included in a solicitation or contract, also include the clause set

forth at 1852.223–76.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Weinheimer, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on May 4, 1979, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Lupiano and Lynch, JJ.
§ 1136.505 Content of OAR Article V. ( a ) *Requirement.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must specify how grants officers' decisions establish debts under awards, when debts become delinquent, how and when recipients may appeal, and how debts not paid in a timely manner are referred for debt collection.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions.* To implement the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section, a DoD Component's general terms and conditions must use the wording appendix E to this part provides for OAR Article V.
§ 200.314 Supplies. See also § 200.453. ( a ) Title to supplies will vest in the non-Federal entity upon acquisition. If there is a residual inventory of unused supplies exceeding $5,000 in total aggregate value upon termination or completion of the project or program and the supplies are not needed for any other Federal award, the non-Federal entity must retain the supplies for use on other activities or sell them, but must, in either case, compensate the Federal Government for its share. The amount of compensation must be computed in the same manner as for equipment. See § 200.313 (e)(2) for the calculation methodology.
( b ) As long as the Federal Government retains an interest in the supplies, the non-Federal entity must not use supplies acquired under a Federal award to provide services to other organizations for a fee that is less than private companies charge for equivalent services, unless specifically authorized by Federal statute.
#### § 1402.1 Definitions.

The definitions in this subpart are for terms used in this part. For terms used in this part that are not defined, the definitions in 2 CFR part 200 apply. Different definitions may be found in Federal statutes or regulations that apply more specifically to particular programs or activities.