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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR MARCH 31, 1998 AS FILED ON FORM 10QSB WITH THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          22,779
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  539,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,000
<INVENTORY>                                    199,404
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               824,157
<PP&E>                                         248,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,186,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,039,292
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,913,693
<OTHER-SE>                                (13,766,475)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,186,510
<SALES>                                        632,333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               632,333
<CGS>                                          383,086
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  383,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               507,040
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              89,282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (347,075)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (347,075)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (347,075)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
§ 240.11 Unlawful representations. ( a ) *No implication or representation of limiting losses.* No banking institution engaged in retail foreign exchange transactions or its related persons may imply or represent that it will, with respect to any retail customer forex account, for or on behalf of any person: ( 1 ) Guarantee such person or account against loss;
( 2 ) Limit the loss of such person or account; or
( 3 ) Not call for or attempt to collect margin as established for retail forex customers.
( b ) *No implication of representation of engaging in prohibited acts.* No banking institution or its related persons may in any way imply or represent that it will engage in any of the acts or practices described in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *No Federal government endorsement.* No banking institution or its related persons may represent or imply in any manner whatsoever that any retail forex transaction or retail forex product has been sponsored, recommended, or approved by the Board, the Federal government, or any agency thereof.
( d ) *Assuming or sharing of liability from bank error.* This section shall not be construed to prevent a banking institution from assuming or sharing in the losses resulting from the banking institution's error or mishandling of a retail forex transaction.
( e ) *Certain guaranties unaffected.* This section shall not affect any guarantee entered into prior to the effective date of this part, but this section shall apply to any extension, modification or renewal thereof entered into after such date.
#### § 263.82 Establishment of minimum capital levels.

The Board has established minimum capital levels for state member banks and bank holding companies in its Capital Adequacy Guidelines. The Board may set higher capital levels as necessary and appropriate for a particular state member bank or bank holding company based upon its financial condition, managerial resources, prospects, or similar factors, pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 263.85 of this subpart.
§ 22.10 Notice of servicer's identity. ( a ) *Notice requirement.* When a national bank or Federal savings association makes, increases, extends, renews, sells, or transfers a loan secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area, it shall notify the Administrator of FEMA (or the Administrator's designee) in writing of the identity of the servicer of the loan. The Administrator of FEMA has designated the insurance provider to receive the national bank's or Federal savings association's notice of the servicer's identity. This notice may be provided electronically if electronic transmission is satisfactory to the Administrator of FEMA's designee.
( b ) *Transfer of servicing rights.* The national bank or Federal savings association shall notify the Administrator of FEMA (or the Administrator's designee) of any change in the servicer of a loan described in paragraph (a) of this section within 60 days after the effective date of the change. This notice may be provided electronically if electronic transmission is satisfactory to the Administrator of FEMA's designee. Upon any change in the servicing of a loan described in paragraph (a) of this section, the duty to provide notice under this paragraph (b) shall transfer to the transferee servicer.
### -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5 39.0 39.5



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/24 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
✓", 

~ ® VirginiaTech 

I

Institute for Critical Technology and 

Applied Science 

ICTAS (MC 0193) 

Kelly Hafl, Suite 410 Vrginia Tech 

325 Stanger Street, 

Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 

540/231-2597 Fax: 540/231-0970 

www. ictas. vt.edu 

February 11, 2015 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

Virginia Tech and the Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership (MAAP) are pleased to provide this letter 

in support of Hazon Solutions Exemption request under Section 333 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations in order to conduct flight operations for the purposes of aerial imaging and 

videography, precision agriculture and aerial mapping, crisis response support, and 

infrastructure inspection. The MAAP has been continually impressed by their proficiency and 

professionalism. We have conducted a series of flight operations under our Chester certificate 

of authorization and waiver (2014-ESA-160-COA) working with Hazon and they have 

demonstrated first rate airmanship, a deeply ingrained safety culture and risk management 

system and a remarkable attention to detail. 

This company is doing things the right way and the MAAP has absolute confidence in their 

ability to execute this mission set safely. We strongly endorse the expeditious approval of this 

waiver. 

Jon Gre ne 

Associ~te Director (Virginia) 

Mid,,A~lantic Aviation Partnership 

Invent the Future 

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE A N D S T A T E UNIVERSITY 

An equal opportunity, affirmative actlon institution
Editorial Note on Part 225
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 225 appear at 69 FR 77618, Dec. 28, 2004.

§ 225.89 How to request approval to engage in an activity that is complementary to a financial activity? ( a ) *Prior Board approval is required.* A financial holding company that seeks to engage in or acquire more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of any class of voting securities of a company engaged in an activity that the financial holding company believes is complementary to a financial activity must obtain prior approval from the Board in accordance with section 4(j) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(j)). The notice must be in writing and must: ( 1 ) Identify and define the proposed complementary activity, specifically describing what the activity would involve and how the activity would be conducted;
( 2 ) Identify the financial activity for which the proposed activity would be complementary and provide detailed information sufficient to support a finding that the proposed activity should be considered complementary to the identified financial activity;
( 3 ) Describe the scope and relative size of the proposed activity, as measured by the percentage of the projected financial holding company revenues expected to be derived from and assets associated with conducting the activity;
( 4 ) Discuss the risks that conducting the activity may reasonably be expected to pose to the safety and soundness of the subsidiary depository institutions of the financial holding company and to the financial system generally;
( 5 ) Describe the potential adverse effects, including potential conflicts of interest, decreased or unfair competition, or other risks, that conducting the activity could raise, and explain the measures the financial holding company proposes to take to address those potential effects;
( 6 ) Describe the potential benefits to the public, such as greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, that the proposal reasonably can be expected to produce; and
( 7 ) Provide any information about the financial and managerial resources of the financial holding company and any other information requested by the Board.
( b ) *Factors for consideration by the Board.* In evaluating a notice to engage in a complementary activity, the Board must consider whether: ( 1 ) The proposed activity is complementary to a financial activity;
( 2 ) The proposed activity would pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally; and
( 3 ) The proposal could be expected to produce benefits to the public that outweigh possible adverse effects.
( c ) *Board action.* The Board will inform the financial holding company in writing of the Board's determination regarding the proposed activity within the period described in section 4(j) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(j)).
#### § 28.26 Loan production offices.

A Federal branch may establish lending offices, make credit decisions, and engage in other representational activities at a site other than a Federal branch office, subject to the same rights, privileges, requirements and limitations that apply to national banks under 12 CFR 7.1003, 7.1004, and 7.1005.

[68 FR 70701, Dec. 19, 2003]
#### UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL ET AL., EXECUTORS

[60 C. Cls. 451; 271 U. S. 9]

Judgment was rendered against the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *reversed,*the Supreme Court deciding:

1. In calculating the income tax on an estate during administration, under tlie revenue act of 1918, Federal estate taxes are deductible from gross income. *Dtilted States*v. *Woodward,*256 TJ. S. 632.

*7642. But where the estate tax, though it accrued during the income-tax year, was not paid until later, and the taxpayer’s books were kept upon the basis of actual receipts and disbursements — not the “ accrual ” basis — and the return showed such income only as was received during the tax year, the estate tax was not deductible in computing the taxable income of that year. *United States*v. *Anderson,*269' U. S. 422. *Woodward case, supra,*distinguished.

3. Where claimant’s right to recover money paid as income taxes depended on their books having been kept on the accrual basis, the burden was on them to prove that the books were so kept.

4. A question not raised by counsel or discussed in the opinion is not to be regarded as decided merely because it might have been raised and decided on the record.

5. The inheritance tax imposed by Texas, and paid by executors, *held*deductible in computing the Federal income tax of the estate under revenue law of 1918. *Keith*v. *Johnson,*271 U. S. 1.

Mr. Justice Butler

delivered the opinion of the Supreme

Court April 12, 1926.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPTEMBER 14, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 10-10193

Non-Argument Calendar

_____________

D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cv-00079-AAA-JEG 

EDWARD P. MANTURUCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD M. MEEKS, Georgia State

Trooper, 

Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

__________________________

(September 14, 2010)

Before CARNES, MARCUS and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

We have carefully reviewed the record and briefs. We conclude that the

district court correctly dismissed the complaint.

The statements of conclusions without fact averments do not and did not

meet the plausibility standard of Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11 Cir. 2010). th

Appellant did not and has not moved for permission to amend the

complaint. No amendment was filed or proffered.

AFFIRMED.

2
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of SETO Holdings, Inc. (the Company)
on form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Craig Pian, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,, that to the
knowledge of the undersigned:



| | 3. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 4. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: December 12, 2003

| |  |  |  |                                                                              
| |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | /s/ Craig PianCraig Pian
Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this quarterly report on form 10-QSB pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by
the Company for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

31
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
pertaining to the 1989, 1991 and 1993 stock option plans and the 1995
performance equity plan, (Form S-8 No. 33-00142), (Form S-8 No. 33-00144),
Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-30197), 1995 Nonqualified Stock
Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors and certain nonqualified stock options
(Form S-8 No. 333-31439), Senior PIK Preferred Stock (Form S-4 No. 333-42017),
and Registration of shares underlying certain warrants (Form S-3 No. 333-50853)
of our reports dated March 3, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Source Media, Inc. and SourceSuite LLC included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                                      /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Dallas, Texas
April 14, 2000
#### § 1815.115 OMB control number.

The collection of information requirements in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB control number 1505-0153 (expires September 30, 1998).
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2685 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 180
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2685

                          [Report No. 108-303]

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
      reauthorize the Matching Grant Program for School Security.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2003

   Mr. Rothman (for himself, Mr. Frost, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Terry, Mr. 
  Menendez, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. 
 Ruppersberger, Mr. Evans, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Boswell, Mr. 
   Green of Texas, Mr. Case, Mr. Etheridge, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of 
  California, Ms. DeLauro, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. 
 McHugh, Mr. Owens, Mr. Crowley, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Nadler, and Mr. Hyde) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

                            October 7, 2003

   Additional sponsors: Mr. Conyers, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. 
  Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
 Serrano, Mr. Wexler, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Emanuel, and 
                              Mr. Ballance

                            October 7, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
      reauthorize the Matching Grant Program for School Security.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL 
              SECURITY.

    Section 2705 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797e) is amended by striking ``2003'' and inserting 
``2008''.

                                                 Union Calendar No. 180

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2685

                          [Report No. 108-303]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
      reauthorize the Matching Grant Program for School Security.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 7, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
§ 246.5 Notice of assessment and appeal. ( a ) *Notice of Assessment.* The Board shall issue a notice of assessment to each assessed company no later than June 30 of each calendar year following the assessment period, provided, however, that for the 2012 assessment period, the Board shall issue a notice of assessment as soon as reasonably practical after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
( b ) *Appeal period.* ( 1 ) Each assessed company will have thirty calendar days from June 30, or, for the 2012 assessment period, thirty calendar days from the Board's issuance of a notice of assessment for that assessment period, to submit a written statement to appeal the Board's determination: ( i ) That the company is an assessed company; or
( ii ) Of the company's total assessable assets.
( 2 ) The Board will respond with the results of its consideration to an assessed company that has submitted a written appeal within 15 calendar days from the end of the appeal period in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
Editorial Note on Part 220
Editorial Note: A copy of each form referred to in this part is filed as a part of the original document. Copies are available upon request to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any Federal Reserve Bank.

§ 220.127 Independent broker/dealers arranging credit in connection with the sale of insurance premium funding programs. ( a ) The Board's September 5, 1972, clarifying amendment to § 220.4(k) set forth that creditors who arrange credit for the acquisition of mutual fund shares and insurance are also permitted to sell mutual fund shares without insurance under the provisions of the special cash account. It should be understood, of course, that such account provides a relatively short credit period of up to 7 business days even with so-called cash transactions. This amendment was in accordance with the Board's understanding in 1969, when the insurance premium funding provisions were adopted in § 220.4(k), that firms engaged in a general securities business would not also be engaged in the sale and arranging of credit in connection with such insurance premium funding programs.
( b ) The 1972 amendment eliminated from § 220.4(k) the requirement that, to be eligible for the provisions of the section, a creditor had to be the issuer, or a subsidiary or affiliate of the issuer, of programs which combine the acquisition of both mutual fund shares and insurance. Thus the amendment permits an independent broker/dealer to sell such a program and to arrange for financing in that connection. In reaching such decision, the Board again relied upon the earlier understanding that independent broker/dealers who would sell such programs would not be engaged in transacting a general securities business.
( c ) In response to a specific view recently expressed, the Board agrees that under Regulation T: * * * a broker/dealer dealing in special insurance premium funding products can only extend credit in connection with such products or in connection with the sale of shares of registered investment companies under the cash accounts * * * (and) cannot engage in the general securities business or sell any securities other than shares * * * (in) registered investment companies through a cash account or any other manner involving the extension of credit.
( d ) There is a way, of course, as has been indicated, that an independent broker/dealer might be able to sell other than shares of registered investment companies without creating any conflict with the regulation. Such sales could be executed on a “funds on hand” basis and in the case of payment by check, would have to include the collection of such check. It is understood from industry sources, however, that few if any independent broker/dealers engage solely in a “fund on hand” type of operation.
[38 FR 11066, May 4, 1973]
Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
      Statements of Buckeye Technologies Inc. of our reports dated August 26, 2008,
      with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Buckeye
      Technologies Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
      reporting of Buckeye Technologies Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form
      10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2008:





*
      Form
      S-8 No. 333-151724 pertaining to the 2007 Omnibus Incentive Compensation
      Plan


*
      Form
      S-8 No. 333-61373 pertaining to the Restricted Stock Plan


*
      Form
      S-8 No. 333-61371 pertaining to the Merfin Systems 401(K) Profit Sharing
      Plan


*
      Form
      S-8 No. 333-18559 pertaining to the 1995 Management Stock Option Plan of Buckeye
      Cellulose Corporation


*
      Form
      S-8 No. 333-18561 pertaining to the Buckeye Cellulose Corporations Formula
      Plan
      for Non-Employee Directors


*
      Form
      S-8 No. 333-18573 pertaining to the 1995 Incentive and Nonqualified Stock Option
      Plan for Management Employees of Buckeye Cellulose Corporation





/s/
      Ernst & Young LLP


Memphis,
      Tennessee


August
      26, 2008