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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF GEO SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC. AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,
1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999. EXCEPT FOR THE DATES AND PER SHARE DATA, ALL AMOUNTS ARE IN
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          $6,413
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                       345
<INVENTORY>                                     19,815
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,020
<PP&E>                                         112,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 192,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,669
<BONDS>                                        120,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,205
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   192,766
<SALES>                                         37,606
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,606
<CGS>                                           28,136
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,892
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,379
<INCOME-TAX>                                       519
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                859
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       859
<EPS-BASIC>                                  $6,316.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                $6,316.18


</TABLE>
#### John W. Owens and Wife *v.*Josiah L. Hickman et al.

(No. 10,157.)

A petition to enforce the forfeiture of a lease, for non-payment of rent, and seeking to recover the rent due, is bad for misjoinder. The remedies are inconsistent and plaintiff must elect.

Special Term. — On demurrer to petition.

The plaintiffs sought to recover the arrears of rent due upon the covenants in a lease; and asserting a forfeiture of the term, by the defendants, in consequence of the non-payment of rent, prayed that the plaintiffs may be restored to the possession. The lease was for five years, nearly two of which had already expired.

*Dodd &*Huston, for plaintiffs.

*r. M. Conwine,*for defendants.

Storer, J.

The remedies sought are inconsistent with each other. The right to recover the rent depends upon contract; the right to be restored to the possession rests upon the ground that the defendant has no claim to the property; or in legal acceptation is a trespasser. Hence the claims can not stand together.

By the terms of the lease the rent is not made a lien upon the term leased; a simple forfeiture of the estate is made to depend upon the refusal to pay the rent reserved, at the time and place stated, after demand.

*472The payment of the rent after the right of forfeiture accrued, and the subsequent occupation by the tenant, would be a waiver of the right to forfeit; and the recovery of a judgment for the rent in arrear, might preclude the landlord from asserting a forfeiture, for the breach of a condition he had once assumed could be compensated for in damages. "We know of no case, where such a remedy has been allowed, after action brought and a recovery had.

The result is very clear. In this form we can grant but one of the claims of the plaintiffs; we may give judgment for the rent due, dismissing the petition as to the right to recover the term ; or-we may restore the plaintiffs to the possession of their term, leaving them to pursue another remedy ,;for the recovery of the rent in arrear. This is the rule, as we find it settled in 9 Paige, 430, *Stuyvesant*v. *Davis,*and 20 Barbour, 467, *Underhill*v. *Saratoga & Wash. R. R. Co.,*and is entirely consistent with the law as we have always understood it to exist.

'Demurrer sustained.
Editorial Note on Part 294
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 294 appear at 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 294.85 Charterworthiness standards. ( a ) Registrants may perform U.S.-originating charters authorized under Annex B (III)(A) of the Agreement as follows: Commercial air transportation of passengers and their accompanied baggage, and of property, on a time, mileage, or trip basis, where the entire planeload capacity of one or more aircraft has been engaged by a person for his own use or by a person for the transportation of a group of persons and/or their property, as agent or representative of such group, or other small aircraft operations as may be authorized under any amendments, supplements, reservations, or supersessions of the Agreement.
( b ) Registrants may perform Canadian-originating charters authorized by Annex B (III)(B) of the Agreement and any amendments, supplements, reservations or supersessions of it. Such charters may be performed only to the extent authorized by the Air Carrier Regulations of the Canadian Transport Commission applicable to operations by small aircraft.
# Официален вестник C 68A/2011

| | ISSN 1830-365X
  doi:10.3000/1830365X.CA2011.068.bul |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | C 68A |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Информация и известия | Година 543 март 2011 г. |

ISSN 1830-365X

doi:10.3000/1830365X.CA2011.068.bul

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

C 68A

Издание на български език

Информация и известия

Година 543 март 2011 г.

---

| Известие No | Съдържание | Страница |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Поправки |
| 2011/C 068A/01 | Поправка на обявлението за конкурс на общо основание EPSO/AST/112/10 — Асистенти (AST 3) (ОВ C 341 A, 16.12.2010 г.) | 1 |

Известие No

Съдържание

Страница

Поправки

2011/C 068A/01

Поправка на обявлението за конкурс на общо основание EPSO/AST/112/10 — Асистенти (AST 3) (ОВ C 341 A, 16.12.2010 г.)

(ОВ C 341 A, 16.12.2010 г.)

1

ПРЕГЛЕД НА БРОЕВЕТЕ НА ОВ СЕРИЯ С А КОНКУРСИ

По-долу е даден списък на броевете от серия С А, публикувани през настоящата година.

Освен ако не е посочено друго, броевете на ОВ са публикувани във всички езикови варианти.

| 19 | (PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 24 | |
| 35 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 37 | (PL/RO) |
| 60 | |
| 68 | |

19

(PL)

24

35

(DE/EN/FR)

37

(PL/RO)

60

68

| BG | |
| --- | --- |

BG

---

Поправки

| 3.3.2011 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | CA 68/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2011

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

CA 68/1

---

Поправка на обявлението за конкурс на общо основание EPSO/AST/112/10 — Асистенти (AST 3)

(
  Официален вестник на Европейския съюз C 341 A от 16 декември 2010 г.
  )

(2011/C 68 A/01)

На страница 3 част IV.2

вместо:

| „Тест г) | професионални качества:


  Точност и прецизност | оценяване: от 0 до 20 точки


  изискван минимум: 10 точки |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Тест д) | професионални качества:


  Определяне на приоритети и организиране | оценяване: от 0 до 20 точки


  изискван минимум: 10 точки“ |

„Тест г)

професионални качества:

Точност и прецизност

оценяване: от 0 до 20 точки

изискван минимум: 10 точки

Тест д)

професионални качества:

Определяне на приоритети и организиране

оценяване: от 0 до 20 точки

изискван минимум: 10 точки“

да се чете:

| „Тест г) | професионални качества:


  точност и прецизност | оценяване: от 0 до 20 точки |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Тест д) | професионални качества:


  определяне на приоритети и организиране | оценяване: от 0 до 20 точки |
| | Изискваният минимум е 20 точки общо от тестове г) и д).“ |

„Тест г)

професионални качества:

точност и прецизност

оценяване: от 0 до 20 точки

Тест д)

професионални качества:

определяне на приоритети и организиране

оценяване: от 0 до 20 точки

Изискваният минимум е 20 точки общо от тестове г) и д).“

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*John H. Becker, Appellant.

Argued November 23, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.

*Harry Gittleson*and *Sol. A. Klein*for appellant.

*Charles P.*Sullivan, *District Attorney (John H. W. Krogmann*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgments reversed and new trial ordered. The inconsistencies in the People’s evidence and the unexplained omissions are so unsatisfactory that we are of the opinion that the defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### § 460.53 Security.

An operator must implement security requirements to prevent any space flight participant from jeopardizing the safety of the flight crew or the public. A space flight participant may not carry on board any explosives, firearms, knives, or other weapons.
#### Ray M. GIDNEY, Comptroller of the Currency, Appellant v. COMMERCIAL STATE BANK OF ROSEVILLE, State Bank of Fraser, Appellees.

No. 15435.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 25, 1960.

Decided May 12, 1960.

Petition for Rehearing Denied June 3, 1960.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Luther W. Youngdahl, District Judge.

Mr. John G. Laughlin, Jr., Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. George C. Doub, Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Samuel D. Slade, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., als& entered an appearance for appellant.

*872Mr. N. Barr Miller, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. J. Marvin Haynes and Joseph H. Sheppard, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.

Before Edgerton, Wilbur K. Miller, and Burger, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We agree in general with the opinion of Judge Youngdahl in the District Court. Commercial State Bank of Roseville v. Gidney, 174 F.Supp. 770. The appealed judgment is therefore

Affirmed.
## Consensus

U.S. Department of Energy Working Group on Manufactured Housing

— Reg Neg August 4

- 5, 2014

FMCS Facilitators Commissioners Eileen Hoffman and Javier Ramirez

## “ con.sen.sus ”

 A process for group decision making, in which:

 Everyone has been heard,

 The decision may not be every person’s first choice, but

 They can live with and support the decision

2 Try to c reate a solution t hat c an b e s upported b y e veryone

 Aim for a solution that considers the INTERESTS of everyone

3 

## Consensus Guidelines Ask Questions

 Raise Valid Doubts

 Offer Alternatives

 Don't Compete for Individual Ideas

4 

## Consensus Guidelines Agree Completely

 Acceptable

 Can Live with the Decision

 Do Not agree

- But Won’t Block and will support

 Do Not Agree & Will Block

5 

## Consensus Ladder Explain why your thumb is down

 Spaced out

 Not sure of question

 Will Block

 Blocker(s) Responsibility

 Explain what the concern is

 Offer an alternative

6 

## “Blocker” Responsibility Temperature Check

 Consensus Confirmation (Final)

7 

## How to Gauge for Consensus Super

- majority*

 Daily numbers

8 

## Consensus Confirmation
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

DNR WATERS 

"Helping people ensure the future of our water resources" 

November 8, 2012 

Ms. Tinka G. Hyde 

Director, Water Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, IL 60604-3590 

Dear Ms. Hyde 

1568 Highway 2, Two Harbors, MN 55616 

218-834-1441 

MINNESOTA'S LAKE SUPERIOR COASTAL PROGRAM, VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT (VGP) AND 

SMALL VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT (SVGP) FEDERAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 

In a letter dated March 9, 2012, Minnesota's Lake Superior Coastal Program (MLSCP) responded to the US EPA's 

December 27, 2011 federal consistency determination for two proposed general NPDES permits for vessel 

discharge incidental to the normal operation of vessels with a letter stating that the proposed VGPs were not 

consistent with the enforceable policies ofMLSCP. This determination was based on comments submitted by the 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to Dr. Ryan Albert, Environmental Scientist with the U.S. EPA's 

Water Permits Division, in a letter dated February 21, 2012, and contained in the 3/9/12 letter. 

Subsequent coordination between MPCA and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, MLSCP partner 

agencies, has resulted in a conditional certification of the VGPs by the MPCA under Section 401 of the Clean Water 

Act in a letter dated September 7, 2012. MPCA issuance of the 401 certification ensures that the VGPs can be 

implemented consistent with the enforceable policies of MLSCP. 

Therefore, MLSCP, as the lead coastal agency pursuant to section 306(c) of the federal CZMA (16 U.S.C., section 

1456(c)) and State of Minnesota Executive Order 99-12, hereby notifies the U.S. EPA that the proposed project is 

consistent with MLSCP. 

Should you have any questions please me at (218) 834-1441 . 

Sincerely, 

f!:& 

MLSCP Federal Consistency Coo dinator 

1568 Highway 2 

Two Harbors, MN 55616 

cliff.bentley@state.rnn.us 

An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity 

DNR lnfonnation: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 TIY: 651 -296-5484 1-800-657-3929
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Actuate Corporation (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge on the date hereof, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated March 12, 2009                                         
|                                                             
|/S/    PETER I. CITTADINI                                    
|Peter I. Cittadini                                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer                        
|(Principal Executive Officer)                                
|                                                             
|/S/    DANIEL A. GAUDREAU                                    
|Daniel A. Gaudreau                                           
|Senior Vice President, Operations and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Walling *v.*The State.

*Abusive Language.*

(Decided June 17, 1915.

69 South. 236.)

1. *name; Middle name; Indictment.*— In an indictment, the middle name *oí*defendant is treated as surplusage, and may be ignored.

2. *Same; Contraction.*— Where the indictment was against Willie Walling, the name ‘“Willie” was one and the same with “William,” and such indictment was good against Willie Thomas Walling, ignoring the middle name.

3. *Evidence; Judicial Knowledge; name.*— When the name Willie is applied to a male, the court judicially knows it to be used as a corruption for William.

Appeal from Coffee Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

Willie Walling was convicted of using abusive, insulting or obscene language in tbe presence of a female, and be appeals.

Affirmed.

J. A. Carnley, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and W. H. Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General, for tbe State.

THOMAS, J.

Tbe defendant was indicted under tbe name of “Willie Walling,” and be filed a plea of misnomer alleging, among other things, that bis true name was “William Thomas Walling.”

(1) Ignoring, as tbe law requires, tbe middle name, “Thomas,” given in tbe plea *(Smith v.*State, 8 Ala. App. 192, 62 South. 575), tbe solicitor’s demurrer to tbe plea, which demurrer tbe court sustained, upon tbe ground, as stated in tbe demurrer, that tbe names “Willie” and “William” are one and tbe same in law.

*254
      (2, 3) While the statement that the names “Willie” and “William” are one and the same in law is not always nor literally true, since “Willie” is often used as a distinct name from William,” and as the real Christian name of a girl, yet when the name “Willie” is applied, as here, to a male, we know judicially, as a matter of common knowledge, it to be used as a corruption of “William,” and hence the two are in this case the same in law, as was.- asserted in the demurrer.

In 29 Cyc. 269, we find the following text, which covers the proposition, to wit: “Where two names have the same original deriviation, or where one of such names is a contraction or corruption of the other name, and in common usage they are considered one and the same, the use of one name for the other is entirely immaterial.”

See, for application of the doctrine, *Bruley v. Griffith,*35 Va. 442, and other cases cited in note 42, p. 270, of 29 Cyc.

Affirmed.
#### § 375.2 Applicability.

The provisions of this part regulate the admission to, and navigation in, the United States of foreign civil aircraft other than aircraft operated under authority contained in a foreign air carrier permit or exemption. This part also contains provisions that specify the extent to which certain classes of flight operations by foreign civil aircraft may be conducted, and the terms and conditions applicable to such operations. Nothing in this part shall authorize any foreign civil aircraft to engage in air transportation nor be deemed to provide for such authorization by the Department.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11616]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-157-002]


Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

May 4, 2000.
    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
§ 420.57 Notifications. ( a ) A licensee shall notify each launch operator and any other customer of any limitations on the use of the launch site. A licensee shall also communicate limitations on the use of facilities provided to customers by the launch site operator.
( b ) A licensee shall maintain its agreement, made in accordance with § 420.31(a), with the local U.S. Coast Guard district.
( c ) A licensee shall maintain its agreement, made in accordance with § 420.31(b), with the FAA ATC office having jurisdiction over the airspace through which launches will take place.
( d ) At least 2 days prior to flight of a launch vehicle, unless the Administrator agrees to a different time frame in accordance with § 404.15, the licensee must notify local officials and all owners of land adjacent to the launch site of the flight schedule.
[Docket No. FAA-1999-5833, 65 FR 62861, Oct. 19, 2000, as amended by Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 420-9, 85 FR 79716, Dec. 10, 2020]
MBUAPCD

SIP Completeness Checklist 1

MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST

RULE NUMBER: 900 DATE AMENDED: 4/20/05 

REGULATION TITLE: Inspection of Public Records - Disclosure Policy 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

Attached/Not Attached*

 X COMPLETE COPY OF THE RULE. If amended rule, indicate

changes in underline and strikeout format, compared to existing

approved SIP version.

 X REFERENCE TO OTHER RULES. If the rule contains a reference

to any other rule, attach a copy of that other rule unless it has already

been submitted to EPA as a part of a previous SIP submittal.

 X PUBLIC NOTICE EVIDENCE. Include a copy of the newspaper

clipping certification with date of publication. Include a copy of

notice from each newspaper.

 X RESOLUTION/MINUTE ORDER. Must include Board Clerk

certification that hearing was held in accordance with information in

the public notice; must also include list of rules adopted or amended,

date of public hearing, and statement of compliance with H&SC

Sections 40725-40728 [Administrative Procedures Act].

 X PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: Any written comments

submitted to the District during pubic notice period or at the hearing;

also include any written responses prepared by the District as normal

District procedure.
MBUAPCD

SIP Completeness Checklist 2

OTHER INFORMATION

Attached/Not Attached

 X MODELING SUPPORT. Provide as appropriate; not required for

VOC and NOx rules; required where rule is a relaxation in an

attainment area for SO2, PM10, CO, or NOx [for NO2 purposes]; for

relaxation or shift of emissions in nonattainment area for SO2, PM10,

CO, and NOx, give reference to the approved SIP.

 X ECONOMIC/TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DEVIATIONS

FROM EPA POLICIES: As appropriate, describe special

circumstances, i.e., where alternative RACT is used, extended

compliance dates included, etc.**

 X ADDITIONAL MATERIALS: Any other supporting information,

such as staff reports, which are included with the rule package but not

specifically required in the checklist above.

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

* Attached separate sheet for each rule explaining why any materials are not included and when

they will be submitted to the ARB.

** Completed enforcement checklist will fulfill this requirement.