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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,953
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,899
<INVENTORY>                                      2,361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,153
<PP&E>                                          76,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 479,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           78,862
<BONDS>                                        307,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           228
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   479,301
<SALES>                                        233,118
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               233,118
<CGS>                                          101,793
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,720
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   282
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,133
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,243
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,890
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,890
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
#### Beatrice Sokol, Appellant, *v.*Dudley Harde et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Harde and Sharp, Respondents.

Argued January 26, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*570
      *George S. Mittendorf*and *Arnold Furst*for appellant.

*Ira Skutch*and *George W. Phillips, Jr.,*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Loughran, Pinch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Hubbs, J.
#### In the Matter of Arlene Graham, as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Graham, Deceased, Petitioner, v H. Carl *790McCall, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

[699 NYS2d 152]

—Crew III, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied Robert Graham’s applications for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits.

In October 1995, petitioner’s spouse (hereinafter decedent), who was employed as a labor foreman by the Town of Hemp-stead in Nassau County, filed applications for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits. Decedent’s application for accidental disability retirement was denied in January 1996 based upon a finding that the proof failed to establish that decedent’s injury stemmed from an “accident” within the meaning of Retirement .and Social Security Law § 63. Although decedent’s application for ordinary disability retirement was approved in June 1996, such approval subsequently was rescinded upon discovering that decedent had died in May 1996 of causes unrelated to the disability upon which the application was based. Following an administrative hearing, respondent Comptroller denied the respective applications, prompting petitioner to commence this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the Comptroller’s determination.

With respect to decedent’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, we agree that the limited record before us is insufficient to permit a finding that decedent’s injury resulted from an “accident”. Simply stated, neither decedent’s brief description of the incident in his application for benefits nor petitioner’s testimony, which was based upon decedent’s statements to her regarding the incident, was sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden of proof in this regard. Accordingly, the Comptroller properly denied such application.

As for decedent’s application for ordinary disability retirement benefits, while it is indeed true that such retirement is “effective as of a date approved by the [Cjomptroller” (Retirement and Social Security Law § 62 [aa]) — here, June 25, 1996, it is equally true that membership in the Retirement System ceases upon death (Retirement and Social Security Law § 40 [f] [2]). As decedent died in May 1996 of causes unrelated to his alleged disability, prior to the approval of his application, and as there is no evidence of undue delay in the approval process, we find no basis upon which to disturb the finding that an award of ordinary disability retirement benefits under such circumstances was precluded (cf., *Matter of Hanover v New York State Policemen’s & Firemen’s Retirement Sys.,*60 *791AD2d 696, *affd,*45 NY2d 907). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
### Gormas, Michael (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: Cc: 

### Subject: Attachments: Greetings, Gormas, Michael (OST) Thursday, April 30, 2015 12:00 PM 'List 1 Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico' Martin, Michael (OST); Schlemmer, Kevin (OST); Devany, Dennis (OST); Harvey, Caitlin (OST); 'airport1@midwest.net'; 'jhester@quincyil.gov'; 'bloy@cityofcapegirardeau.org' Essential Air Service Request for Proposals at Marion-Quincy,

### IL Cape Girardeau, MO - DUE DATE: June 4, 2015 Order2015-4-26 RFP - Marion Quincy

### IL Cape Girardeau MO - 2015.pdf

I have attached the Order requesting proposalsfrom air carriers interesting in providing Essential AirService for a new contractterm beginning December 1, 2015 at Marion/Quincy, Illinois, and Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Proposals are due by 11:59PM on June 4, 2015, and should bee-mailed directlyto michael.f.martin@dot.gov. The Order is available online atwww.regulations.gov undereach community's respective Docket number. Please forward this notice to all relevant parties. Ifyou have questions, feel free to contact Michael Martin. Regards, Michael D. Gormas United States DepartmentofTransportation Office ofAviation Analysis 1200 NewJerseyAve SE Washington, DC 20590 202.366.1853

1
OIL WELL TAXATION.

[Sandusky Circuit Court,

1896.]

King, Haynes and Parker, JJ.

#### In re Oil Well.

Oil Taxes Shall be Distributed to all Parts of County *Pro Rata.*

The law providing that all taxes collected from oil, not to exceed $2,500, shall be returned to the township wherein said wells are located, and devoted to road purposes, is unconstitutional. Such taxes should be distributed to all parts of the county *pro rata.*

Per Curiam.

The last general assembly passed a law providing that all taxes collected from oil wells, not to exceed $2,500, should be returned to the townships wherein said wells are located and be devoted for road purposes. The auditor of Sandusky county, acting under instructions from the state officials, refused to turn over an order for the oil taxes collected in that county to the township treasurers, and eight of the townships decided to have the constitutionality of the law tested. A suit for a writ of mandamus was commenced and argued before the circuit court. In their decision the court give as their opinion that the law is unconstitutional and that all oil taxes, therefore, be distributed to ail parts of the county and not used for any certain townships.
4 

‘\i 

2 OFFICE OFTHEAmORNEY GENERALOFTU(AS 

d AUSTIN 

Austin, f0xM 

Dear DP. Yoodot 0,dnlon no. 2 

Re' fit" 

% 

OS the a0 

A 

OS atnl*s 

t aatloa1 reqld Boll5-v 0 otric saa, 

t"d, 

or soots 

tr 

etter, above tmbjefd 

AJaguat is 

OS 

, To-q, requesttl.on mm-ass-v, 

tbn was en ooatmot 

4he eoid omapaay 

set becum0 Of 

as brolq#tt aboat 

da8On ior 0aDaelItag t&e abow 

letter of 

0 your oforstco sB+gki% to 2; ;::~~t~:2:~*:uo 

that the Rsdtb-Perry BElootrit Co. could not del+wr 

on our contraat. Thei Bosrd OS control irrsued the 

purchaec grcler on the sqaomt fan, and th%s purehhoee 

order over-enoumb~red our usnerrl Rcwmmcs Fund appropriation c-1073. IS our .mqaitaifion lb. imu-sari--v 

haA bean oanoe16d, there would bs suSMuiont fur&e 

in this appropriation to pay fer the faxi that was 

actually delivered by the wafter Tlpa Corspaoy OS 
6, ~anorebl0 ii. A. uoods - pege 2 

Austin, Tame, un our requieitioa No. SRU-JM)-V. 

mere i8 00 other appropriation out of whloh 

this fen may be psld for. Shi6 ofSlc0 rospeetSul2 ly requosts your offloial opinion in order thet 

wo luay havs our requieitlon i&W-323-Y logally aanoeled and the oblia;otion 1lquUleted so Sex- as our 

appropriation l+lw3 is oormerned. 

mNe bOllie?Q that hour ophlon No.. 0+708 pmsdts the Board of control to oencel our retieition DiJ-3264, but so far w8 here been xmable to 

have tha Board OS c0ntr01teke eny notian on our 

requoet .@ 

Our opiniozk No. o-3708 reierred to by pm, wItI& was 

addr6eeod to aonorable Tom De&wry, member OS the BoarCot control, does not purport to answer the precise question nowput 

W YOU. Its reasoning is pertinent to your question, but not 

deaieire. 

The4 purpos6 6s r6qmdficmm end amtaM¶nts egealst 

epeeifio eppoprietione is a rholseome one, em¶ eerves es a 

check em double check egeinst the danger OS poesible liebilities exceeding the appropriation. 

Uosw noreeaon,horeter,why erequfmifimoamltmemt,8hi&ihahaab6aona etanative ahergeegeAnstth8 l ppropr&etlon, @wild not be oeneelled in the menner you suggest, where 

itie apparent to ell parties aw06rn6d that the pumheee eontempletod aan not in anj event be <ronsunmiated bydellvery. tJndeubtedly, euuh a aanaellation or relsase,rould tsorve the useSul purpose OS mek3ng ectuallg ereilable the enfIr approprtetion. Any other prowdur6 would ale no useful purpoea, end 

mould In soma measure thuart the 16@sletire ~I11 in metho ap~sroyzietionr Ye think, as&n& the Saot above etated 

to bo true tand complete, the relooee or oenaelletion OS the 

oomltmnt ehould be requoeted by the pl0es-d oS Control.
GAMBLING CONTRACTS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1896.]

Smith, Swing and Cox, JJ.

#### A. G. Corre v. Mary Rogers.

1. Note for Money Furnished for Gambling Purposes Void, Whether Money is Lost or Not.

A promissory note for money furnished for gambling purposes is void, whether the money was lost at the time of giving the note or not.

2. Trial Court Should Grant New Tral When it Appears Money was ' not in Possession of Maker when Note was Given.

It is error for a trial court to refuse a new trial when the evidence shows that the money involved was furnished for gambling purposes and was not in the possession of the maker when the note was given.

Per Curiam.

The action was one to recover money paid to one Davis for speculation ingrain in Chicago. There was a dispute between Corre and Davis and others about the action of Davis in the matter, and Davis gave *855notes for the money he had received from Corre and others. These notes were indorsed by Mary Rogers, and not being paid were sued on. The defense was that the money was furnished for gambling purposes, and that the notes were given under duress, a threat to arrest having been made. The plaintiff got judgment in the court below.

The circuit court found that the lower court had erred in giving a charge to the jury to the effect that the plaintiff could recover on the note though the money had been furnished for gambling purposes, if the money had not been lost at the time of giving of the note. It was also found that the court erred in not granting a new trial when the evidence showed that the money was furnished for gambling purposes, and was not in possession of Davis at the time the note was given. The case was remanded for a new trial.
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.306 Dismissal or rejection of incomplete applications. ( a ) *Dismissal or rejection.* The Department may dismiss or reject any application for exemption that does not comply with the requirements of this part.
( b ) *Additional data.* The Department may require the filing of additional data with respect to any application for exemption, answer, or reply.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.3

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Plumbing &
Mechanical, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Paul Leleux, Controller 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:

          (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 represents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.



Date: August 14, 2003                     /s/  Paul Leleux
                                          ----------------
                                          Paul Leleux,
                                          Controller





                                       37
#### HOWELL v. TANDERSLY.

(Decided November 25, 1915.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. C. B. Smith.

No counsel marked for appellant. Clyde Randall, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-157-002]

Take notice that on April 28, 2000, Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 901, to be effective May 1, 2000.

Kern River states that the purpose of this filing is to implement a negotiated rate transaction between Kern River and Sempra Energy Trading in accordance with Section 23 of Kern River's tariff and in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines.

Kern River states that a copy of this filing has been served upon its customers and interested state regulatory commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-11616  Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### PRATT & WHITNEY CO. v. UNITED STATES

[80 C. Cls. 676; 295 U. S. 760]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court June 3, 1935.
1

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

January 7, 2016

PC Code: 034805

MEMORANDUM DP Barcodes: 430915

SUBJECT: Ziram: Response to Comments on the EFED Problem Formulation for Registration 

Review

FROM: Elyssa Arnold, Risk Assessment Process Leader

Ron Parker, Senior Environmental Engineer

Environmental Risk Branch 2

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH: Brian Anderson, Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 2

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

TO: Khue Nguyen, Chemical Review Manager

Melissa Grable, Team Leader

Neil Anderson, Branch Chief

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 1

Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P)

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) reviewed a comment from the San Francisco Bay 

Regional Water Quality Control Board on the “Registration Review: Preliminary Problem Formulation 

for Environmental Fate, Ecological Risk, Endangered Species, and Human Health Drinking Water 

Exposure Assessments for Ziram” (DP427965, Docket ID EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0568). The purpose of 

this memorandum is to respond to this comment. 

Comment summary: The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board)

notes that ziram-containing products could leach zinc into urban runoff. Zinc is not recognized as a 

degradate in the Preliminary Problem Formulation and the document states that ziram is not a cause of 

water quality impairment and there are no relevant §303(d) listings or TMDLs. However, ziram is a zinc 

compound, and there are numerous §303(d) listings and TMDLs for zinc. 

The Water Board requests that OPP update its procedure for reviewing the §303(d) list and TMDLs 

related to pesticides as follows: 

• In all cases, search “all” 303(d) listings, not just “pesticides” listings; and 

• Include all degradates and metals in the pesticide. 

EFED response: OPP appreciates the comment from the Water Board. EFED routinely assesses all 

pesticide degradates of concern and will continue to add them to our query of the list of impaired 
2

waters. When the active ingredient (or its degradate of concern) is a metal, OPP will focus on metalimpaired waters which are within the use areas of such active ingredients. This will be determined with 

land-cover data indicating that the active ingredient’s use areas are within the watershed. The relevance 

of 303d listings and TMDLs for metals outside the active ingredient’s use areas is uncertain due to 

natural occurrences or other anthropogenic activities (such as mining, etc.).
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Abraham Greenberg against Alexander Fox et al., Respondents. State Industrial Board, Appellant.

(Argued September 30, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*550
      *John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, appellant.

*Bernard F. Farley*and *Frederick Mellor*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs against State Industrial Board; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
§ 417.207 Trajectory analysis. ( a ) *General.* A flight safety analysis must include a trajectory analysis that establishes: ( 1 ) For any time after lift-off, the limits of a launch vehicle's normal flight, as defined by the nominal trajectory and potential three-sigma trajectory dispersions about the nominal trajectory.
( 2 ) A fuel exhaustion trajectory that produces instantaneous impact points with the greatest range for any given time after liftoff for any stage that has the potential to impact the Earth and does not burn to propellant depletion before a programmed thrust termination.
( 3 ) For launch vehicles flown with a flight safety system, a straight-up trajectory for any time after lift-off until the straight-up time that would result if the launch vehicle malfunctioned and flew in a vertical or near vertical direction above the launch point.
( b ) *Trajectory model.* A final trajectory analysis must use a six-degree of freedom trajectory model to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Wind effects.* A trajectory analysis must account for all wind effects, including profiles of winds that are no less severe than the worst wind conditions under which flight might be attempted, and must account for uncertainty in the wind conditions.
[No. 20415-4-III.

Division Three.

October 31, 2002.]

#### Cameron Allstot, *Appellant,*v. Thomas Edwards, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 94-2-00771-4, Kenneth L. Jorgensen, J., entered July 27, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Sweeney, J. Now published at 114 Wn. App. 625.
§ 415.123 Computing systems and software. ( a ) An applicant's safety review document must describe all computing systems and software that perform a safety-critical computer system function for any operation performed during launch processing or flight that could have a hazardous effect on the public as required by § 417.123 of this chapter.
( b ) An applicant's safety review document must list and describe all safety-critical computer system functions involved in a proposed launch, including associated hardware and software interfaces. For each system with a safety-critical computer system function, an applicant's safety review document must: ( 1 ) Describe all safety-critical computer system functions, including each safety-critical interface with any other system;
( 2 ) Describe all systems, including all hardware and software, and the layout of each operator console and display;
( 3 ) Provide flow charts or diagrams that show all hardware data busses, hardware interfaces, software interfaces, data flow, and power systems, and all operations of each safety-critical computer system function;
( 4 ) Provide all logic diagrams and software designs;
( 5 ) List all operator user manuals and documentation by title and date;
( 6 ) Describe the computing system and software system safety process as required by § 417.123(a).
( 7 ) Provide all results of computing system and software hazard analyses as required by § 417.123(c).
( 8 ) Provide all plans and results of computing systems and software validation and verification as required by § 417.123(d).
( 9 ) Provide all plans for software development as required by § 417.123(e).