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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,845
<SECURITIES>                                     1,522
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,774
<INVENTORY>                                     25,777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               173,873
<PP&E>                                          39,254
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 371,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,447
<BONDS>                                        109,813
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           229
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,439
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   371,967
<SALES>                                         73,611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,611
<CGS>                                           63,535
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 941
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,334)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (292)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,042)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,042)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND PROMESA 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, TITLE III

as representative of Case No. 17-BK-3283 (LTS)

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al., (Jointly Administered)

Debtors1

In re: PROMESA 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND TITLE III

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, Case No. 17-BK-4780 (LTS)

as representative of 

THE PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY (Jointly Administered)

Debtor

Court Filing Relates Only to 

PREPA and Shall Only be Filed 

in Case No. 17-BK-4780 (LTS) 

and Main Case 17-BK-3283 (LTS)

_____________________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies The Motion for Relief from Stay filed by Pan American Grain Co.

Inc. was served via the CM/ECF system in these proceedings as allowed in Section II.I, and 

 

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case number and the last 

four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico 

Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case 

No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the 

Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566- LTS) (Last Four 

Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case 

No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747) (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy 

Case numbers due to software limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4036 Filed:10/09/18 Entered:10/09/18 21:21:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
as described in Section II.D of the Sixth Amended Notice Case Management and 

Administrative Procedures dated August 24, 2018 at docket entry 3804 to:

counsel for the Oversight Board, including as counsel for PREPA; counsel for the Puerto 

Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority; counsel for the Creditors’ Committee; 

counsel for the Committee of Retirees;

to all parties that have filed a notice of appearance in the Commonwealth and PREPA Title 

III proceedings and are registered in the CM/ECF system;

by email to all parties in the October 8, 2018 Master Service List herein attached 

as Exhibit A;

and, by next day delivery to the Office of the US Trustee Region 21

Edificio Ochoa, 500 Tanca Street, Suite 301, San Juan, PR 00901-1922. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 

In Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, on October 8, 2018. 

/S/ Ma Mercedes Figueroa y Morgade 

MaMERCEDES FIGUEROA Y MORGADE 

USDC-PR 207108 

3415 Alejandrino Ave., 

Apt. 703, 

Guaynabo, PR 00969-4856 

Tel: 787-234-3981 

figueroaymorgadelaw@yahoo.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4036 Filed:10/09/18 Entered:10/09/18 21:21:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
Williams, Renee (OST) "D Qc^l^^-V l>OT'03T-(^97-ZW2 -

From: Robert Hagemann [roberth@co.jefferson.ny.us] 

Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:47 PM 

To: 'Rich Corbett'; EAS (OST) , - ... --,r> i 

Cc: JLawrence@co.jefferson.ny.us ./:,•.,. 

Subject: RE: Letter of Support for Cape Air, Continued EAS Service to Watertown 

Rich 

Thanks for forwarding to us the letter of support from this local club. All good points being made in this communication 

and, as you know, none that we would not totally agree with. The issue at hand for the county is trying to determine which 

of the three airline proposals best aligns itself with our business plan. I have forwarded this letter of support to all of our 

participating airport committee members, including both our Board Chairman & Vice Chairperson. 

Again, I appreciate your bringing this to our attention. 

Bob 

From: Rich Corbett [mailto:tiparrotheads@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:05 AM 

To: RobertH@co.jefferson.ny.us; eas@dot.gov 

Cc: JLawrence@co.jefferson.ny.us 

Subject: Letter of Support for Cape Air, Continued EAS Service to Watertown 

Hello, 

Attached is a letter of support of Cape Air's proposal for continued air service to the Watertown International 

Airport. 

Andrea Bos, Interim President 

1000 Islands Parrot Head Club 

P.O. Box 8263 

Watertown, NY 13601
§ 13.49 Motions. ( a ) *Motions in lieu of an answer.* A respondent may file a motion to dismiss or a motion for a more definite statement in place of an answer. If the hearing officer denies the motion, the respondent must file an answer within 10 days. ( 1 ) *Motion to dismiss.* The respondent may file a motion asserting that the allegations in the complaint fail to state a violation of Federal aviation statutes, a violation of regulations in this chapter, lack of qualification of the respondent, or other appropriate grounds.
( 2 ) *Motion for more definite statement.* The respondent may file a motion that the allegations in the notice be made more definite and certain.
( b ) *Motion to dismiss request for hearing.* The FAA may file a motion to dismiss a request for hearing based on jurisdiction, timeliness, or other appropriate grounds.
( c ) *Motion for decision on the pleadings or for summary decision.* After the complaint and answer are filed, either party may move for a decision on the pleadings or for a summary decision, in the manner provided by Rules 12 and 56, respectively, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
( d ) *Motion to strike.* Upon motion of either party, the hearing officer may order stricken, from any pleadings, any insufficient allegation or defense, or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.
( e ) *Motion to compel.* Any party may file a motion asking the hearing officer to order any other party to produce discovery requested in accordance with § 13.53 if— ( 1 ) The other party has failed to timely produce the requested discovery; and
( 2 ) The moving party certifies it has in good faith conferred with the other party in an attempt to obtain the requested discovery prior to filing the motion to compel.
( f ) *Motion for protective order.* The hearing officer may order information contained in anything filed, or in any testimony given pursuant to this subpart withheld from public disclosure when, in the judgment of the hearing officer, disclosure would be detrimental to aviation safety; disclosure would not be in the public interest; or the information is not otherwise required to be made available to the public. Any person may make written objection to the public disclosure of any information, stating the ground for such objection.
( g ) *Other motions.* Any application for an order or ruling not otherwise provided for in this subpart must be made by motion.
( h ) *Responses to motions.* Any party may file a response to any motion under this subpart within 10 days after service of the motion.
EXHIBIT A 

RECEIPTS OF DRIVETRAIN, LLC DURING APPLICATION PERIOD

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 1 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 2 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 3 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 4 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 5 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 6 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 7 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 8 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 9 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 10 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 11 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 12 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 13 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 14 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 15 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 16 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 17 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 18 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 19 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 20 of 21
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3567-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 20:43:56 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 21 of 21
Martin, Michael (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Joseph D. Gray <supervisor@town.massena.ny.us> 

Friday, December 21, 2012 5:00 PM 

Martin, Michael (OST) 

Town of Massena NY Comments on EAS Selection 

~own of :Massena, :New 'lor~ 

P.sta6{is/ied: 1802 

%wnJfa{[ 315-769-3588 

60 9dainStreet (Pa.J(j 315-769-0578 

9dassena, :New r'forft13662 littp://www. massenawor&s. com/town/itufex.asp 

Councifmen: CJ@6ert Cunningliam, Jolin :Macaufay, Cliarfes (]@,it~ )1.C6ert Wicofa 

Supervisor: Josepfi (]), qray 

December 21, 2012 

Mr. Michael Martin 

United States Department of Transportation 

Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) 

Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Martin: 

On behalf of the Town of Massena and the Massena Town Council, I write to express our support for the 

selection of Cape Air as the Essential Air Service provider for the Massena International Airport. Specifically, 

we support the two-year proposal as submitted to your agency last month by Cape Air. 

For the past four years, Cape Air has provided reliable, affordable service to air travelers from the greater 

Massena area. Our first experience was with Cape Air flights to Albany and it has been very well received. 

During its second EAS contract, Cape Air expanded its offering by adding a connection from Albany to Boston. 

As a result, ridership has soared and we are very pleased with the dramatic rise in enplanements. 

We believe are experience is a perfect example of what the Essential Air Service program is all about. Our rural 

community can easily make connections to the national air service network and fly to any destination in the 

world. 

Please accept our thanks for your Department's administration of this worthwhile program and for allowing us 

involvement in how decisions are made regarding our air service. 

Sincerely, 

1 
I 

i 

Joseph D. Gray, Supervisor 

Town of Massena 

2
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-28729]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234; EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044; FRL-9733-2]
RIN 2060-AR62

Reconsideration of Certain New Source and Startup/Shutdown 
Issues: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and 
Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, 
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-
Institutional Steam Generating Units

Correction

    Proposed rule document 2012-28729, appearing on pages 71323-71344 
in the issue of Friday, November 30, 2012, should have appeared in the 
Proposed Rules section of the issue.

[FR Doc. C1-2012-28729 Filed 12-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00397- CR Ne r e ida F lor e s J ac obs , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLI AMSO N COUNTY NO. 04-4 871- 1, HO NORAB LE SUZANNE BRO OK S, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant Nere ida Flor es Jacobs guilty of driving while intox icated. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 49.04 ( West 2003). The punishment is thirty day s’ incar cer ation and a $500 fine, probated. Appellant wa s repr esente d by reta ined counse l at trial. She filed a pr o se not ice of a pp e a l and

re qu e ste d a

pp ointe d c ouns e l f

or the a pp e a l. A ft e r a

pp e lla nt f a ile d to a pp e ar at a sc he du le d in dig e nc y

he ari ng , th e c ourt

fo un d th at sh e is n ot i nd ig e nt a nd de nie d th e requ e st. Ap pe lla nt d id n ot o bta in a

re po rt e r’ s reco rd and , aft e r s he wa s g ive n n oti c e and an o pp or tun ity to cu re , t h e appeal wa s submitt ed for decision without a re porter’ s rec ord. SeeTe x. R. A pp . P. 3 7 . 3(c) (1). Appe llant did not file a brief or re spond to this C ourt’s notices. See T e x. R . App . P. 38.8(b)( 4). We have examined the rec ord bef ore us a nd find n o fu n d am ental er ror that should be considere d in the interest of justice.2 The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pemberton Affir med Filed: Oc tober 13, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 906 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND
ACCOUNTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION

Form of Certification Pursuant to Section
1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

I, Lawrence
R. Kuhnert, the Vice Chairman of Finance (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer), President and Chief Operating Officer of Critical Home Care, Inc.,
certify that, to the best of my knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Critical Home Care, Inc.

|                        |  | /s/ Lawrence
  R. Kuhnert                                                                                                     
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |                                                                                                                               
|                        |  | Vice
  Chairman of Finance
      (Principal Financial and
     Accounting Officer), President
     and Chief Operating Officer
|Dated:  August 20, 2004 |  |                                                                                                                               

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Critical Home Care, Inc. 
The statement will be retained by Critical Home Care, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.3

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                      OF
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF
                        FIRSTWORLD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

     FirstWorld Communications, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware ("DGCL"), does hereby
certify that:

     First: The name of the corporation is FirstWorld Communications, Inc.

     Second: The date on which the original Certificate of Incorporation of
     the corporation was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of
     Delaware is February 23, 1998.

     Third: The Board of Directors of the corporation, acting in accordance with
     the provisions of Sections 141(f) and 242 of the DGCL, adopted a resolution
     to amend Article Fourth, Section (a) to read in its entirety as follows:

          "(a) This Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of shares,
          designated `Common Stock' and `Preferred Stock.' The total number of
          shares which this Corporation shall have the authority to issue is
          510,000,000. The number of shares of Common Stock authorized to be
          issued is 500,000,000, of which 10,135,164 shall be designated Series
          A Common Stock and 489,864,836 shall be designated Series B Common
          Stock. The number of shares of Preferred Stock authorized to be issued
          is 10,000,000. The par value of each share of Common Stock and of each
          share of Preferred Stock is $.0001."

     Fourth: Thereafter, pursuant to a resolution by the Board of Directors,
     this Certificate of Amendment was submitted to the stockholders of the
     corporation for their approval in accordance with the provisions of
     Sections 222 and 242 of the DGCL. Accordingly, said proposed amendment has
     been duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the DGCL.

     In Witness Whereof, FirstWorld Communications, Inc. has caused this
Certificate to be signed by its Secretary this 25th day of July, 2000.

FirstWorld Communications, Inc.

By:  /s/ Jeffrey L. Dykes
   ----------------------------
Jeffrey L. Dykes
Secretary
#### Conroy v. Burda

*Frederick I. Charles,*for plaintiff.

*James L. Weirbach,*for defendants.

March 11, 1958.

Koch, J.,

We have before us the disposition of a petition for the allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc from the judgment of an alderman. A rule was granted, an answer filed and dispositions taken. Security in the sum of $250 was entered.

It appears that John E. Conroy, trading as Conroy’s, instituted an action in assumpsit against petitioners seeking to recover $121.97. Petitioners appeared for a hearing before the alderman, Richard. J. Snyder, on July 6, 1954. Because of the failure of plaintiff to appear, the alderman continued the matter. At a subsequent hearing, defendants (petitioners) failed to *419appear. The deposition of the alderman indicates that no judgment was entered and that the suit is still pending on his docket.

On December 28, 1955, plaintiff instituted another suit on the same cause of action before Alderman Robert R. Williams. It seems that petitioners failed to appear for a hearing and judgment was entered against them. After the expiration of the appeal period, a constable levied on the household goods on February 10, 1956, and on February 20, 1956, we issued the rule which was presented to us for disposition on February 25, 1958.

Ordinarily, an appeal nunc pro tunc will not be allowed because of the laches of petitioner: Rudy v. Troup, 67 Pa. Superior Ct. 160. However, the testimony before us indicates that there is present the important factor that there was a pending suit on the same issue before another alderman. In Cleveland R. R. v. Erie, 27 Pa. 380, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that a party cannot be doubly vexed by two proceedings for the same cause carried on against him at the same time. See, also, Stout v. Werstner, 8 Dist. R. 507.

Coupled with the pendency of a prior suit, we cannot overlook the fact that the deposition of petitioners indicates that they have the defense of payment. It appears to us, therefore, that this is a proper case to exercise our discretion and allow the appeal. We can find no appellate court decisions dealing with this state of facts, but at least two lower court cases have been called to our attention. In McNulty v. McCarty, 4 W. N. C. 478, and Schoneman v. Sternberger, 7 W. N. C. 111, it has been held that where a defendant who has been led into inaction by mistake and swears to a good defense, he will be permitted to file his appeal nunc pro tunc.

*420
      *Order*

And now, March 11, 1958, the rule to show cause why an appeal nunc pro tunc should not be allowed is made absolute.
Editorial Note on Part 183
Editorial Note: For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this part 183, see Amdt. 183-1, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

§ 183.57 Responsibilities of an ODA Holder. The ODA Holder must— ( a ) Comply with the procedures contained in its approved procedures manual;
( b ) Give ODA Unit members sufficient authority to perform the authorized functions;
( c ) Ensure that no conflicting non-ODA Unit duties or other interference affects the performance of authorized functions by ODA Unit members.
( d ) Cooperate with the Administrator in his performance of oversight of the ODA Holder and the ODA Unit.
( e ) Notify the Administrator of any change that could affect the ODA Holder's ability to continue to meet the requirements of this part within 48 hours of the change occurring.
§ 27.907 Engine vibration. ( a ) Each engine must be installed to prevent the harmful vibration of any part of the engine or rotorcraft.
( b ) The addition of the rotor and the rotor drive system to the engine may not subject the principal rotating parts of the engine to excessive vibration stresses. This must be shown by a vibration investigation.
( c ) No part of the rotor drive system may be subjected to excessive vibration stresses.