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


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           123,378
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                 0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  61,726
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        1,498
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           294,140
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             297,332
<LOANS>                                        1,156,175
<ALLOWANCE>                                       15,536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,721,402
<DEPOSITS>                                     1,428,395
<SHORT-TERM>                                     128,875
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               13,159
<LONG-TERM>                                       28,879
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          12,075
<OTHER-SE>                                       110,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 1,721,402
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  107,312
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 20,968
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   4,183
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 132,463
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                47,334
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                56,436
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             76,027
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     37,626
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                    37
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   70,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    1,731
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         1,680
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,680
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.74
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                      5.07
<LOANS-NON>                                        5,208
<LOANS-PAST>                                       5,695
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  25,892
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     21,829
<RECOVERIES>                                       2,967
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 15,536
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              15,536
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                0
        


</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA simulator study for the development and evaluation of operating procedures on a supersonic cruise research transport to minimize airport-community noisePiloted-simulator studies were conducted to determine takeoff and landing operating procedures for a supersonic cruise research transport concept that result in predicted noise levels which meet current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification standards. With the use of standard FAA noise certification test procedures, the subject simulated aircraft did not meet the FAA traded-noise-level standards during takeoff and landing. However, with the use of advanced procedures, this aircraft meets the traded-noise-level standards for flight crews with average skills. The advanced takeoff procedures developed involved violating some of the current Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), but it was not necessary to violate any FAR noise-test conditions during landing approach. Noise contours were also determined for some of the simulated takeoffs and landings in order to indicate the noise-reduction advantages of using operational procedures other than standard.Document ID19810003535Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsGrantham, W. D.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Smith, P. M.*(Kentron International, Inc., Hampton Va., United States)*Deal, P. L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1980Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNASA-TP-1742L-13881Accession Number81N12043Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19810003535.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
# C_2006048EN.01001901.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/19

---

Action brought on 22 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-463/05)

(2006/C 48/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dominique Maidani and Wouter Wils, acting as Agents.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2002/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, or in any event by not informing the Commission of those measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2002/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, or in any event by not informing the Commission of those measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 11 of Directive 2002/47 imposed an obligation on Member States to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 27 December 2003 at the latest and immediately to inform the Commission of those provisions.

The Commission finds that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has not yet adopted those measures or in any event has not notified it of them.

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 168, p. 43.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 20 (Monday, February 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2200]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


List of Institutions of Higher Education Ineligible for Federal 
Funds

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document is published to identify institutions of higher 
education that are ineligible for contracts and grants by reason of a 
determination by the Secretary of Defense that the institution 
prohibits or in effect prevents military recruiter access to the 
campus, students on campus or student directory information. It also 
implements the requirements set forth in section 983 of title 10, 
United States Code, and 32 CFR Part 216. The institutions of higher 
education so identified are: Vermont Law School, South Royalton, 
Vermont; William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota.

ADDRESSES: Director for Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 4000 Defense Pentagon, 
Washington, DC 20301-4000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Colonel Rose Jourdan, (703) 
695-5529.

    Dated: January 27, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-2200 Filed 1-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
§ 417.484 Requirement applicable to related entities. ( a ) *Definition.* As used in this section, *related entity* means any entity that is related to the HMO or CMP by common ownership or control and— ( 1 ) Performs some of the HMO's or CMP's management functions under contract or delegation;
( 2 ) Furnishes services to Medicare enrollees under an oral or written agreement; or
( 3 ) Leases real property or sells materials to the HMO or CMP at a cost of more than $2,500 during a contract period.
( b ) *Requirement.* The contract must provide that the HMO or CMP agrees to require all related entities to agree that— ( 1 ) HHS, the Comptroller General, or their designees have the right to inspect, evaluate, and audit any pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the subcontractor involving transactions related to the subcontract; and
( 2 ) The right under paragraph (b)(1) of this section to information for any particular contract period will exist for a period equivalent to that specified in § 417.482(f).
( 3 ) That payments must not be made to individuals and entities included on the preclusion list, defined in § 422.2 of this chapter.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38082, July 15, 1993; 81 FR 80556, Nov. 15, 2016; 83 FR 16721, Apr. 16, 2018]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with UN Special Envoy on Myanmar Burgener

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with UN Special Envoy on Myanmar Burgener							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

June 22, 2021

The following is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met with UN Special Envoy on Myanmar Christine Schraner Burgener today in Washington, D.C. Deputy Secretary Sherman and Special Envoy Burgener discussed the international community’s efforts to help bring an end to the Burmese military’s violence and repression, including by urging ASEAN to hold the Burmese military accountable to the five-point consensus and supporting the people of Burma in their efforts to return Burma to the path of democracy. They also discussed efforts to ensure access to vital humanitarian aid for vulnerable populations inside Burma and to encourage countries in the region to provide assistance and safe haven to refugees and asylum seekers.

 

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationBurmaDemocracyDeputy Secretary of StateHumanitarian AidOffice of the SpokespersonRefugees

Back to Top
#### Bernice P. FELTS v. REGAL BUICK, INC.

No. 47844.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 17, 1975.

Sekul, Hornsby & Wallace, Biloxi, for appellant.

Billy F. Brown, Biloxi, for appellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and INZER and BROOM, JJ.

Affirmed.
#### § 31.12 Use of Service facilities.

Except as otherwise provided herein, the persons specified in § 31.11 shall be entitled to medical, surgical, and dental treatment and hospitalization only at medical relief stations and by designated physicians and designated dentists, and the cost of services procured elsewhere shall not be borne by the Service.

(Sec. 610(b), 58 Stat. 714, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 763c)
#### Tracy DAVIS v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 48279.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 17, 1975.

W. D. Kendall, W. S. Moore, Julie Ann Epps, Thomas J. Ginger, Jackson, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by John C. Underwood, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and SMITH and SUGG, JJ.

Affirmed.
Swanson, Brian (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Dear Sirs: 

Cynthia <jrlncal@sbcglobal.net> 

Friday, August 03, 2012 5:25 PM 

Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Rhinelander, WI essential air service l"t 

I~ ···b 

I am a frequent traveler to the Rhinelander Airport. I travel there 6-8 times a year. I run a small business and have many 

customers that also need to fly. We live 30 miles from the RHI airport so CWA is extremely difficult with time and 

weather for transport. 

I have flown many times on Sky West Airline. They are a marvelous carrier with well trained professional pilots and well 

maintained aircraft. They would connect with MSP to allow world wide travel. 

A stand alone carrier that doesn't code share would make travel more expensive for the visitors to the North Woods, 

and impact their economy. 

Sincerely, 

Cynthia Lake 

Sent from my iPad 

1
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3233 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3233

  To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to repeal 
denial of approval of nurse aide training programs based on reasons not 
                 associated with quality or operation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 1996

 Mr. Ehrlich introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to repeal 
denial of approval of nurse aide training programs based on reasons not 
                 associated with quality or operation.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DENIAL OF APPROVAL OF NURSE AIDE TRAINING PROGRAMS 
              BASED ON REASONS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH QUALITY OR 
              OPERATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 1819(f)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(f)(2)(B)) and section 1919(f)(2)(B) of such Act (42 
U.S.C. 1396r(f)(2)(B)) are each amended by striking clause (iii) and 
the sentence that follows and inserting the following:
                            ``(iii) shall prohibit approval of such a 
                        program that does not comply with the 
                        requirements for nurse aide training and 
                        competency evaluation programs and nurse aide 
                        competency evaluation programs established by 
                        the Secretary under subparagraph (A).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--(1) The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to programs approved on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (2) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promulgate 
such regulations (on an interim final or similar basis) as may be 
required to carry out the amendments made by this section on a timely 
basis.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1

 

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP 

Independent Auditors 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of our report dated January 17, 2003, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Hudson United Bancorp and Subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002: 

 

Form S-8 No. 333-86794, pertaining to the 2002 Stock Option Plan 

 

Form S-8 No. 333-94133, pertaining to the Option Plans of Jeffbanks 

 

Form S-8 No. 333-75571, pertaining to the 1999 Stock OptionPlan 

 

Form S-8 No. 333-61491, pertaining to theOption Plan of IBS Financial Corp. 

 

Form S-8 No.333-61493, pertaining to the Option Plans of Dime Financial Corporation 

 

Form S-8 No. 333-52193, pertaining to the Option Plans for Former Employees of Poughkeepsie Financial Corp. 

 

Form S-8 No. 033-59801, pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan 

 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP 

 

New York, New York 

March 13, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,292,153
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,292,153
<PP&E>                                     189,875,741
<DEPRECIATION>                           (189,875,741)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,292,153
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,292,153
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,292,153
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Pacific Northwest Recreation Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Portland, OR. The purpose of the meeting is to review and provide recommendations on recreation fee proposals for facilities and services offered on lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in Oregon and Washington, under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on October 30, 2009, from 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. A public input session will be provided at 10:30 a.m. on October 30, 2009. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting will be at the Residence Inn by Marriot, Lloyd Center, 1710 NE Multnomah St., Portland, Oregon 97232. Send written comments to Dan Harkenrider, Designated Federal Official for the Pacific Northwest Recreation RAC, 902 Wasco Street, Suite 200, Hood River, OR 97031, 541-308-1700 or                         *dharkenrider@fs.fed.us.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dan Harkenrider, Designated Federal Official, 902 Wasco Street, Suite 200, Hood River, OR 97031, 541-308-1700.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Recreation RAC discussion is limited to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management staff and Recreation RAC members. However, persons who wish to bring recreation fee matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. A public input session will be provided and individuals who have made written requests by October 26, 2009, to the Designated Federal Official will have the opportunity to address the Committee during the meeting on October 30, 2009, at 10:30 a.m.

The Recreation RAC is authorized by the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act, which was signed into law by President Bush in December 2004.

Dated: September 1, 2009.

Mary Wagner,

Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region.

[FR Doc. E9-21686 Filed 9-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
# C_2006060EN.01003802.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2005 — BIC v OHIM

(Case T-263/04) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a lighter with a flint - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 60/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): BIC SA (Clichy, France) (represented by: M.-P. Escande and A. Guillemin, Lawyers)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant(s):

Action

brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2004 (Case R 469/2003-4), in relation to the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a lighter with a flint

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

1

---