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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PIMCO
ADVISORS HOLDINGS L.P. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          19,061
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,126
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 501,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       453,233<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   501,583
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,700
<CGS>                                                0<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,801
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,899
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,899
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,899
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
<FN>
<F1>ENTITY IS A PARTNERSHIP. AMOUNT SHOWN REPRESENTS PARTNERS' CAPITAL.
<F2>THE PARTNERSHIP IS IN THE SERVICE BUSINESS AND HAS NO SALES OR COST OF GOOD
SOLD ON TANGIBLE PRODUCTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
NOTICE OF LODGING OF PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

CASE NO. 2:15-cv-3798-ODW (ASx)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOHN C. CRUDEN

Assistant Attorney General

Environment & Natural Resources Division

United States Department of Justice

LESLIE M. HILL (D.C. Bar No. 476008)

Leslie.Hill@usdoj.gov

Environmental Defense Section

601 D Street N.W., Suite 8000

Washington D.C. 20004

Telephone (202) 514-0375

Facsimile (202) 514-8865

Attorneys for Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESTERN DIVISION

SIERRA CLUB, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-3798-ODW (ASx)

NOTICE OF LODGING OF 

PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

Defendants, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Gina 

McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of EPA, and Jared Blumenfeld, in his 

official capacity as Regional Administrator of EPA, Region IX, “EPA”), hereby lodge

with the Court a proposed Consent Decree that contains the terms of a proposed 

settlement of this action. See Exhibit A, Proposed Consent Decree. 

The proposed consent decree should not be signed or entered by the Court at 

this time. Pursuant to section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(g), the 

Consent Decree is not final and cannot be entered by the Court until the EPA 

Case 2:15-cv-03798-ODW-AS Document 15 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:42
NOTICE OF LODGING OF PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

CASE NO. 2:15-cv-3798-ODW (ASx)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Administrator provides “a reasonable opportunity by notice in the Federal Register to 

persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the action” to comment in writing 

upon the proposed Decree. Accordingly, EPA will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of the proposed Consent Decree and request comments. After the public comment 

period ends, the EPA Administrator and the Attorney General, as appropriate, will 

promptly consider any written comments received and, if none of the comments disclose 

facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed Consent Decree is inappropriate, 

improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, EPA

will move for entry of the Decree.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: September 28, 2015

JOHN C. CRUDEN

Assistant Attorney General

Environment and Natural Resources Division

 /s/ Leslie M. Hill

LESLIE M. HILL (D.C. Bar No. 476008)

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Environmental Defense Section

601 D Street N.W., Suite 8000

Washington D.C. 20004

Leslie.Hill@usdoj.gov

Telephone (202) 514-0375

Facsimile (202) 514-8865

Attorneys for Defendant

Of counsel:

Geoffrey L. Wilcox

Office of General Counsel

Jeanhee Hong

Assistant Regional Counsel, Region IX

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Case 2:15-cv-03798-ODW-AS Document 15 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:43
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4580 Surgical lamp. ( a ) *Identification.* A surgical lamp (including a fixture) is a device intended to be used to provide visible illumination of the surgical field or the patient.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device, when it is an operating room lamp, a surgical instrument light, a surgical floor standing light, an endoscopic surgical light, a surgical light connector, a ceiling mounted surgical light, a surgical light carrier, surgical light accessories, a surgical lamp, a remote illuminator, or an incandescent surgical lamp, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 878.9.
[53 FR 23872, June 24, 1988, as amended at 84 FR 71814, Dec. 30, 2019]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4253]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC10-44-000]


Crescent Ridge LLC; Notice of Filing

February 23, 2010.
    Take notice that on February 16, 2010, Crescent Ridge LLC filed a 
supplement to its February 2, 2010 section 203 application.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#11575443525e7f7d787f74426461617e636551777463723f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="783e3d2a3b37161411161d2b0d0808170a0c381e1d0a1b561f170e">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 26, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4253 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Williams, Renee (OST) 1>oCk^^: bOf- O'^T f^^?- 2-^ V" ^ 

From: Peggy Mossow [moose_rn @ hotmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 8:50 PM 

To: supervisor@town.massena.ny.us; anicola@twcny.rr.com; EAS (OST) 

Subject: letter of support for capeair 

Mr. Gray, Mr. Nicola, Mr. DeVany, 

Just a quick note to let you know I am definately in favor of keeping Cape air service to Albany. Albany is a one hour trip 

with easy connections anywhere. The airport is smaller, less congested, and more user friendly than the larger Boston 

airport. 

As well, from Massena, most people, (including myself) will either be going south or west for their vacation get-aways, 

and it just doesn't make sense to me to go from Massena all the way to the east coast ( Boston ) and then back-track 

back to the south or west. 

It is much more direct for my flights to Louisiana, Texas, Cleveland and North Carolina to connect In Albany. 

I appreciate your consideration and look forward to continued service on Capeair flights to Albany. 

Sincerely, 

Peggy Mossow
SERVE D FEBRUAR Y 16,201 2 ..,,, , ^ ~ U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N ],-:i^^'^?^':iJ^[(Viy ^ OFFIC E O FHEARING S . v..-- . OKER.TIOi-l o WASHINGTON , D C j-^ n p. ^ 7 , A iO

: 0 3 I n Th e Matter

Of : DEA N INTERNATIONAL , INC. , Respondent DOCKE T NO . FAA-2011-006 9 (Civi l Penall y Proceeding )

ORDE RDISMISSIN G PROCEEDIN G O n Februar y 10 , 201 2 th e Complainant , th e Federal Aviatio n AdminisUaiio n (FAA ) filedaSettlemen t

Agreemen t

wit hth e OfYic

e o f Hearings . Thi s Settlemen t Agreement

wa s date dandsigne db

y bot hth e FA A an dResponden t

Dea n International , Inc. , an dstate dtha

t th e partie s ha

dreache dful

l andfinal settlemen t

o n ail claim s i

n the litigation . I t I s Hereb y Ordered : 1 ) Th e Telephon e Motio n Conferenc e set fo r Apri l 12 , 201 2 (1:30p mEST ) i s cancelled . 2 ) Th e Hearing.schedule dfo r Apri l 24 , 201 2 - Apri l 26 , 201 2 (9:00am- 4:30p m EST ) i n Miami , Florida , i s cancelled . 3 ) Pursuant

to 1 4 C.F.R . §13.215 , this proceedin g i s disn-\issc dwit hprejudice . jlliva n i^trativ e La

w Judg e Attachment : Servic e Lis tFDM S No . FAA-2011-006 9 (Civi l Penalt y Proceeding ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Stuar t A . Goldstein . Responden l ' s Counse l La w Office s o f

Goldstei n & Sord o 9350Sout hDixi e Highway , 10t hFloo r Miami , F L3315 6 TEL : 305-670-122 2 FAX : 305-670-706 5 Christophe r

R . Stevenson , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , ASO- 7 Souther n Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta , G A 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e J . E . ^\\\\\\a.\\ . Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r service i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier, use th

e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , 60

0 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2WI000 , Washington, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk . AGC^30 .
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SEC URITY NATIONAL INSUR A NC E C OM PANY, a s subroge e of All Powe r, Inc ., Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15479 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01594-M C EC KD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., C hie f Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 12, 2016 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN a nd TALLM A

N, C irc uit Judge s a

nd LASNIK, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED FEB 17 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble R obe rt S. La snik, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.Se c urity Nationa l Insura

nc e C om pa ny a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s R ule 12(b)(1) dismissa l of its a c tion a lle ging c la im s a ga inst theUnite d State s unde r the Fe de ra l Tort C la i m s Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd re vie w de novo. Brady

v . Unite d State

s , 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th C ir. 2000). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the la

wsuit for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion be c a

use ne ithe r the pla intiff insura nc e c om p any , nor its insure d (in whose shoe s the insura

nc e c om pa ny sta nds) file d a

n a d m inistra t ive c l a im prior to filing suit. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2675(a); Mc N e il v . Unite d State

s , 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Brady , 211 F.3d a t 502-03. Se c urity

Nationa l’ s a

rgum e nts tha

t it should be e xc use d from

§ 2675(a)’ s e xha

u stion re quire m e nt be c a

use othe r partie s with ove rla pping intere sts ha

ve file d the ir own c la i m s la c k m e rit. Se c tion 2675(a ) is jurisdic tiona l . Brady , 211 F.3d a t 502. In thea

bse n c e of jurisdic t ion, Se c urity Nationa l ’ s a

rgum e nts ba se d on theFe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e dure are be side the point. Fe d. R . C iv. P. 82; C anate lla v . C

alifornia , 404 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th C ir. 2005). Proc e dura l rule s c a nnot c re ate jurisdic tion. Se eC a nate lla , 404 F.3d a

t 1113. AFFIRM E D.

2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Biopure
Corporation for the period ended July 31, 2005, I, Francis H. Murphy, Chief
Financial Officer, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    the Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2005, fully complies
            with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
            Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    the information contained in the Form 10-Q for the period ended July
            31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
            condition and results of operations of Biopure Corporation.

/s/ Francis H. Murphy
-----------------------
Francis H. Murphy
Chief Financial Officer

September 9, 2005
#### Lane *v.*City of Crawfordsville.

[No. 19,150.

Filed November 14, 1900.]

From the Montgomery Circuit Court.

*Affirmed.*

*H. H. Ristine*and *Harold Taylor,*for appellant.

*Charles Johnston*and *W. H. Johnston,*for appellee.

Hadley, J.

— Action to restrain appellee from proceeding with the improvement of Plum street under the provisions of the act of March, 8,1889, commonly known as the Barrett law.

The material facts and question presented in this case are similar to the facts and question presented in *Taylor*v. *City of Crawfordsville, ante,*430, and upon the authority of that case the judgment in this is affirmed.
# C_2014261EN.01005202.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/52

---

Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Monthisa Residencial v Commission

(Case T-484/14)

2014/C 261/82

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monthisa Residencial, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. de Artíñano Rodríguez de Torres and J. Martínez Muro, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

Bankia

Commission

In particular, it is alleged that Article 107(1) TFEU and the general principle of EU law relating to the protection of legitimate expectations have been infringed.

---
§ 876.5520 Urethral dilator. ( a ) *Identification.* A urethral dilator is a device that consists of a slender hollow or solid instrument made of metal, plastic, or other suitable material in a cylindrical form and in a range of sizes and flexibilities. The device may include a mechanism to expand the portion of the device in the urethra and indicate the degree of expansion on a dial. It is used to dilate the urethra. This generic type of device includes the mechanical urethral dilator, urological bougies, metal or plastic urethral sound, urethrometer, filiform, and filiform follower.
( b ) *Classification.* ( 1 ) Class II (special controls). Except when it is a mechanical urethral dilator, the device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 876.9.
( 2 ) Class I for the urethrometer, urological bougie, filiform and filiform follower, and metal or plastic urethral sound. The devices subject to this paragraph (b)(2) are exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 876.9.
[48 FR 53023, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 1122, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38802, July 25, 2001; 84 FR 71814, Dec. 30, 2019]
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  The
undersigned, Perry Law, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Smart-Tek Solutions Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
            the
      annual report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended June 30,
      2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and
  (2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
  Dated:  February
24, 2010
  /s/ Perry
Law
 Perry
Law
 Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal
Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer
 and
Principal Accounting Officer)
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Smart-Tek Solutions Inc. and will be
retained by Smart-Tek Solutions Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.