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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF MARCH 31,  1999 AND THE  STATEMENT  OF INCOME  FOR THE THREE  MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 797977
<NAME> PARTICIPATING INCOME PROPERTIES 1986, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      47,529,241
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163,878
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,799,153
<DEPRECIATION>                                 575,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,916,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,431,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,916,315
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,245,883
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  371,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             25,626,451
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         25,626,451
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                25,626,451
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   463.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 1251
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1251 appear at 81 FR 3709, Jan. 22, 2016.

§ 1251.109 Effect of State or local law or other requirements and effect of employment opportunities. ( a ) The obligation to comply with this part is not obviated or alleviated by the existence of any state or local law or other requirement that, on the basis of disability, imposes prohibitions or limits upon the eligibility of qualified individuals with disabilities to receive services or to practice any occupation or profession.
( b ) The obligation to comply with this part is not obviated or alleviated because employment opportunities in any occupation or profession are or may be more limited for individuals with disabilities than for individuals without disabilities.
# BRAZI LAI R TRAVE LSERVICE S PHP T

### CFT.••••^S^ORWIO N

Februar y24 , 201 0 '"•: •" " Th e Honorabl e Ra yLaHoo d Secretary Unite d State s Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E Washington , D.C.2059 0 Subject : Haned a Combinatio n Service s Allocatio n Proceedin g

DOT-OST-2010-001 8 Dea rSecretaryLaHood , A s a dedicate d trave l partne ro fAmerica n Airlines , I a m writin g i n suppor t o fAmerican' s applicatio n t o provid e ne wservic e fro m Ne wYork' s Joh n F

. Kenned yInternationa l Airpor t an d Lo s Angele s Internationa l Airpor t t o Toky o Internationa l Airpor ta t Haneda

. I recogniz e an d applau d yo u an d th e Obam a administratio n fo ryou rsucces s las t Decembe ri n reachin g a landmar k

Ope n Skie s agreemen t wit h Japan , whic h open s u p Haned a t o servic e b yU.S

. airlines

. I encourag e you rselectio n o fAmerica n Airline s t o provid e nonsto p servic e fro m Ne wYor k an d Lo s Angele s t o Haned a i n orde rt o provid e a n essentia l connectio n betwee n thre e o fth e world s larges t financia l an d commerc e centers

. Recen t events , includin g th e successfu l preservatio n o fJapa n Airlines ' Oneworl d Allianc e membership , hav e underscore d American' s stron g commitmen t t o th e trans-Pacifi cmarket

. America n i s likewis e committe d t o Ne wYor k an d Lo s Angele s - bot h vita l foca l point s o fbusiness , trade , entertainment , technolog yan d educatio n - providin g unsurpasse d ai rservic e sinc e th e mid
1900 s Bot h th e Ne wYor k

an d Lo s Angele s metr o area s wil l gai n significan t economi cbenefit s fro m thes e propose d ne wflights , a s wil l American' s customer s an d employees

. However , w e nee d you rhel p t o mak e th e JF K& LAX/Haned a connectio n a reality

. Therefore , I strongl yurg e yo u t o sa yye s t o America n Airline s an d it s reques t fo rslot s t o fl yfro m Kenned yan d Lo s Angele s t o Haneda ! Sincerely ,

5ano s Owne r

1075 1 WiLSHiR E BOULEVARD , SUIT

E 1007 •Lo

s ANGELES , CALIFORNI A9002 4 (310 ) 441-850 0 •(800 ) 441-851 5 •Hnp://www.BRAZiLAiR.co M •E-MAIL : TONYBANOS®BRAZILAIR.CO M
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, that:

     -    the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     -    the information contained in the report fairly presents, on all
          material respects, the Company's financial condition and results of
          operations.

/s/ Duane J. Costenbader
Duane J. Costenbader, Principal Financial Officer

Dated: November 10, 2003

                                       28
Editorial Note on Part 747
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 747.40 Review by the NCUA Board. ( a ) *Notice of submission to the NCUA Board.* When the NCUA Board determines that the record in the proceeding is complete, the NCUA Board will serve notice upon the parties that the proceeding has been submitted to the NCUA Board for final decision.
( b ) *Oral argument before the NCUA Board.* Upon the initiative of the NCUA Board or on the written request of any party filed with the NCUA Board within the time for filing exceptions, the NCUA Board may order and hear oral argument on the recommended findings, conclusions, decision, and order of the ALJ. A written request by a party must show good cause for oral argument and state reasons why arguments cannot be presented adequately in writing. A denial of a request for oral argument may be set forth in the NCUA Board's final decision. Oral argument before the NCUA Board must be on the record.
( c ) *The NCUA Board's final decision.* ( 1 ) Decisional employees may advise and assist the NCUA Board in the consideration and disposition of the case. The final decision of the NCUA Board will be based upon review of the entire record of the proceeding, except that the NCUA Board may limit the issues to be reviewed to those findings and conclusions to which opposing arguments or exceptions have been filed by the parties.
( 2 ) The NCUA Board will render a final decision within 90 days after notification of the parties that the case has been submitted for final decision, or 90 days after oral argument, whichever is later, unless the NCUA Board orders that the action or any aspect thereof be remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings. Copies of the final decision and order of the NCUA Board will be served upon each party to the proceeding, upon other persons required by statute, and, if directed by the NCUA Board or required by statute, upon any appropriate State or Federal supervisory authority.
#### JONES V. THE STATE.

(Decided December 16, 1913.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. Samuel E. Greene.

No counsel marked for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Thomas, J.

No error.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit
32**
 
 **Certification
by**
 **pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**
 **as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002**
  
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of National Lampoon, Inc and Subsidiaries
(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is
an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:
 
 (1)
    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 result of operations of the Company
      for the periods reflected therein.
  ****Date: June 14, 2005,
    
    /s/ Daniel S.
  LaikinDaniel S. Laikin, Chief Executive Officer
 ****Date: June 14, 2005
    
    /s/ Douglas S.
    BennettDouglas S. Bennett, President and Chief Financial
      Officer
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 6962

MAECHEL SHAWN PATTERSON
,
Petitioner

- Appellant
,

v.
ENNIS OATES, Superintendent
, Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III
, Chief District Judge. ( 5:12

- hc

- 02063

- D )

Submitted : September 14, 2018 Decided: October 16, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge
, KEENAN, Circuit Judge , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Maechel Shawn Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Maechel Shawn Patterson, a state prisoner, seeks this court’s review of his Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court’s October 3, 2012, judgment in

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) proceeding . The district court has not yet issued an o rder
ruling on Patterson’s Rule 59(e) motion. Thus, there is no appealable order related to that

motion for us to review. * Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny
Patterson’s motion to amend the district court’s judgment, and dismis s the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

DISMISSED

* Patterson’s informal brief also cannot be construed as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal from the October 2012 judgment, as it was not filed within the appeal period applicable to that judgment. S ee Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)( A ); Smith v. Barr y , 502 U.S. 244, 248

- 49 (1992) ; see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) (prison mailbox rule); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (same)

.
# C_2015138EN.01005101.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/51

---

Order of the General Court of 5 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (NEXTCARD)

(Case T-233/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark NEXTCARD - Partial refusal of registration by the examiner - Obligation to state reasons - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2015/C 138/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2014 (Case R 1807/2013-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign NEXTCARD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Intesa Sanpaolo SpA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Intesa Sanpaolo SpA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

1

---
#### § 345.44 Public notice by banks.

A bank must provide in the public area of its main office and each of its branches the appropriate public notice set forth in appendix F to this part. Only a branch of a bank having more than one facility-based assessment area must include the bracketed material in the notice for branch offices. Only a bank that is an affiliate of a holding company must include the next to the last sentence of the notices. A bank must include the last sentence of the notices only if it is an affiliate of a holding company that is not prevented by statute from acquiring additional depository institutions.
#### Daniel Lon GRAHAM *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5757

486 S.W. 2d 678

Opinion delivered November 20, 1972

*John Lineberger, Public Defender,*for appellant.

*Ray Thornton,*Atty. Gen., by: *Henry Ginger, De*
      *463
      *puty Atty. Gen.,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Daniel Lon Graham escaped from the pentitentiary while serving a life sentence for kidnapping a banker’s wife. During that escape he robbed a Safeway Store at Springdale and at gun point directed the three store employees to accompany him to a lonely spot on Hickory Creek Road. After forcing the three young men to lie face down in the tall grass, he shot each of them in the back of the head. The jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree for the killing of Gene Allen Franco. Since the jury did not recommend a life sentence pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2153 (Repl. 1964), his punishment was fixed at death by electrocution. Appellant’s only contention is that the death sentence coristitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Both the Arkansas Constitution, Art. 2, § 9 and the U. S. Constitution, Eighth Amendment, prohibit “cruel and unusual punishment.” Under the Arkansas Constitution, the death penalty does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.” See *Davis*v. *State,*246 Ark. 838, 440 S.W. 2d 344 (1969). However, the U.S. Supreme Court, as presently constituted, has recently decided that where a jury is permitted to decide between the punishments of life and death, the death penalty constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” and that such interpretation is applicable to the several states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See *Furman*v. *Georgia,*408 U.S. 238 (1972).

So long as the ruling in *Furman*v. *Georgia, supra,*is made applicable to this State, we are obliged to reduce appellant’s sentence from death to life imprisonment as being the next highest available penalty, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2308 (Repl. 1964). In reducing the penalty, we must recognize that a second life sentence against appellant does not necessarily mean that his punishment will be greater or more severe, nor can we say with certainty that he will be any less likely to escape in the future.

*464Since the commitment to be issued by the trial court may effect the appellant’s status as a prisoner we are remanding to the trial court for consideration of consecutive or concurrent sentences.

Affirmed as modified and remanded.
#### § 121.519 Flight time limitations: Deadhead transportation: airplanes.

Time spent by an airman in deadhead transportation to or from a duty assignment is not considered to be part of any rest period.
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00002

- CR

JECORI HOWARD, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 0142X

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

JeCori Howard, appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appeal. The

motion was signed by Howard and by his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2, we

grant the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: January 14, 2013

Date Decided: January 15, 2013

Do Not Publish
#### RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY v. WOOTEN et al.

No. 32039.

May 29, 1945.

*159 P. 2d 230.*

Rainey, Flynn, Green & Anderson and M. M. Gibbens, all of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Claud Briggs, of Oklahoma City, and Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding was commenced by Railway Express Agency, Incorporated, hereinafter called petitioner, to review an award made to James W. Wooten by reason of an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of the employment with the petitioner.

On September 24, 1945, respondent filed his first notice of injury and claim for compensation, stating that on July 8, 1943, he sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment while attempting to unload a 24-inch gate valve from a truck to the platform of the express agency. On the 13th day of December, 1943, the State Industrial Commission, after conducting a complete hearing, entered an award for temporary total disability, and a proceeding was brought to review the award. The same was sustained. Railway Express Agency v. Wooten, 194 Okla. 250, 149 P. 2d 335.

Subsequently' this' proceeding was brought to determine the permanent disability, and on the 23rd day of October, 1944, the State Industrial Commission entered an award finding that the respondent had sustained a 60 per cent disability of the whole body under the provisions of 85 O.S. 1941 § 22, as amended, providing for awards in “other cases” for the percentage of total disability of the whole man.

The evidence discloses that since the last award the respondent has a permanent disability. Dr. Harris testified that in his opinion respondent’s disability was 65 to 75 per cent; that it was a result of the accidental injury of July 8, 1943. The contestéd question of fact presented at the proceeding to determine the extent of permanent disability dealt extensively with whether or not the permanent condition which is established by the evidence is the result of the accidental injury of July 8, 1943, or the result of an arthritic condition preexisting independently or probably caused by a former injury received while working with another company. The question was determined in Railway Express Agency v. Wooten, supra. This testimony of the medical expert witness above referred to .is also supported by that of Dr. ■ Morrison. The testimony' of expert witnesses for the petitioner tended to support their theory that the permanent disability was the result of the former condition. This question of fact was resolved in favor of the respondent and by this finding we are bound where the same is supported by any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain it. Capshaw v. Lawson, 194 Okla. 237, 149 P. 2d 333; Southern Ice & Utilities Co. v. Barra, 182 Okla. 214, 77 P. 2d 55; Superior Oil Co. v. Swimmer, 177 Okla. 396, 60 P. 2d 734.

The award of the State Industrial Commission is sustained.

GIBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, and DAVISON, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138642 

MEISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 138642 

 COA: 280190 

Washtenaw CC: 06-000906-CZ 

STAMPER & COMPANY and JEFFREY J. 

PODOLSKI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
An equal opportunity employer 

1220 L Street, Northwest Russell White

Washington, DC 20005-4070 Health Sciences Manager 

Tel 202-682-8344 

Fax 202-682-8270 

whiter@api.org

April 26, 2012 

Byron J. Bunker, 

Acting Division Director 

Compliance Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency 2000 Traverwood 

Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation: 

2nd Draft Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole-Body 

Inhalation Toxicity Study In Rats With Neurotoxicity Assessments and 4-Week In 

Vivo Genotoxicity And Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study No. 00-6130) 

Dear Mr. Bunker: 

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), 

is submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b) 

Alternative Tier 2 requirements of the testing regulation: 

 2nd Draft Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole-Body 

Inhalation Toxicity Study In Rats With Neurotoxicity Assessments and 4-Week In 

Vivo Genotoxicity And Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study NO. 00-6130) 

 The study director’s response to comments from EPA, the two peer-reviewers, an 

independent quality assurance (QA) auditor, and the RG (Checklist April 26, 2012)

The RG believes the 2nd draft is ready for final review by EPA as all significant comments have 

been addressed by the study director in this version. However, the RG wants to point out the 

following issues. 

1. Upon reviewing the study director’s response to QA comments, the auditor had the following 

additional comments; 

a. The QA Statements for Gentox and GFAP reports seem to be mixed up. GFAP 

necropsy listed in Genotoxicity QA Statement and vice versa. 

b. The Micronucleus report appears to contain a protocol page from an earlier version 

of this report. Page 1066 contains several question marks (?) for dates, lot numbers, 

and purity of the test material. The final protocol should be in the final report 

c. Table 7 is actually the Statistics Report from M. Nicolich and G. Bukhbinder. It needs 

a cover page to indicate this. Please verify that QA has reviewed this report. 

d. The QA Statement for CDC (GFAP) is blank. 

e. Experimental Termination and Study Completion dates will need to be added to 

report. 

The RG believes that none of these issues compromise the interpretation of the results and will 

confirm they are corrected in the final report. 
April 26, 2012 

Page 2 of 2 

If you require further information or have any questions regarding this submission, please 

contact me. 

Regards, 

Russell D. White 

Enclosures on CD: 1) 2nd Draft Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week 

Whole-Body Inhalation Toxicity Study In Rats With Neurotoxicity 

Assessments and 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity And Immunotoxicity 

Assessments (HLS Study NO. 00-6130) 

2) The study director’s response to comments from EPA, the two peerreviewers, an independent quality assurance (QA) auditor, and the RG 

(Checklist April 26, 2012) 

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)