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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AT SEPTEMBER  30, 2000 WHICH ARE
INCLUDED IN THE  REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-QSB AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001072816
<NAME>                        Fullcomm Technologies, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         72,374
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               72,374
<PP&E>                                         14,672
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,703
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 96,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          246,916
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       859
<OTHER-SE>                                     (151,526)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   96,249
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,387,778
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,377,832)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,377,832)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,377,832)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.18)



</TABLE>
#### § 437.33 Landing and impact locations.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76727, Sept. 19, 2024.

An applicant must demonstrate that each location for nominal landing or any contingency abort landing of the reusable suborbital rocket, and each location for any nominal or contingency impact or landing of a component of that rocket, satisfies § 437.61.
§ 67.213 General medical condition. The general medical standards for a second-class airman medical certificate are: ( a ) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus that requires insulin or any other hypoglycemic drug for control.
( b ) No other organic, functional, or structural disease, defect, or limitation that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition involved, finds— ( 1 ) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
( 2 ) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
( c ) No medication or other treatment that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the medication or other treatment involved, finds— ( 1 ) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
( 2 ) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
#### HAYZER v. BEDECS

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.

No 10054.

Decided June 3, 1929

A. A. Meltzen, Esq., for Hayzer.

F. E. Boldizor. Esq., Cleveland, for Bedecs.

VICKERY, PJ.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and .after examining this record, we think the court below was right in his conclusions. As we understand the rule that allows liquidated damages, it is only when the damages are difficult of ascertainment, that would result from a breach of the contract. Some courts have gone so far as to say not only difficult but impossible to prove, but we prefer to use the phrase “difficult of .ascertainment.”

Now an examination of this record will show that the properties that were to be exchanged and the value of each could be easily ascertained and the damages would be the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property; and it might be really a benefit for the plaintiff below to have gotten out of his contract. Anyway, we think the court properly construed this phrase in the contract to be a penalty rather than liquidated damages and, when that is conceded or found by the court, the measure of damages is the same as it is in any other case, except that it is limited by the amount fixed in the contract; but there would be no way of ascertaining the damages except from the evidence, and there being no evidence in this case to show any damages, the court might have been technically wrong if there was a breach admitted, for it might have held there were nominal damages; but I suspect the record does not even show that, and we can see no reason why this judgment should be reversed and the same will, therefore, be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          37,032
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,737
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (698)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,535
<PP&E>                                           8,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,188)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,132
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,618
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,132
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               183,246
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,012
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,407)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,752)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,655)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,628)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT A HISTORICAL EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATION
FOR THE PARTIAL PERIOD BETWEEN THE SPIN-OFF DATE OF JUNE 18, 1999 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 IS MEANINGFUL.
</FN>


</TABLE>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 460 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion for 

employer-provided education assistance to employer payments of student 

loans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2019 

Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. THUNE, Mr. KING, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. MARKEY, 

Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. JONES, Mr. ROUNDS, 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. TESTER, Mr. BLUNT, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. YOUNG, Ms. ROSEN, Mr. GARDNER, and Ms. SINEMA) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the exclusion for employer-provided education assistance 

to employer payments of student loans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Employer Participation 

5 in Repayment Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 460 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYER PAYMENTS 

2 OF STUDENT LOANS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 127(c) 

4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik5 ing ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (A), by redesig6 nating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C), and by in7 serting after subparagraph (A) the following new subpara8 graph: 

9 ‘‘(B) the payment by an employer, whether 

10 paid to the employee or to a lender, of principal 

11 or interest on any qualified education loan (as 

12 defined in section 221(d)(1)) incurred by the 

13 employee, and’’. 

14 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT; DENIAL OF DOUBLE

15 BENEFIT.—Paragraph (1) of section 221(e) of the Inter16 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before 

17 the period the following: ‘‘, or for which an exclusion is 

18 allowable under section 127 to the taxpayer’s employer by 

19 reason of the payment by such employer of any indebted20 ness on a qualified education loan of the taxpayer’’. 

21 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

22 this section shall apply to payments made after December 

23 31, 2019. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.















 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.



























 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
#### RASP v OHIO STUTZ CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9155.

Decided Jan 21, 1929

A E Sweigert and Lieghley, Halle, Haber & Berick, Cleveland, for Rasp.

Joseph B. Keenan, Cleveland, for Stutz Co.

Judges MAUCK and MIDDLETON of the Fourth District ahd FARR of the Seventh District sitting.

*152MIDDLETON, PJ

The most that may be claimed, for this testimony and the fact that at the time of the collision Black was driving a machine of the defendant Company, is that by inference the jury might have found that Black was ,an agent or employee of the Company. But to entitle the plaintiff to a recovery, it must further appear that Black at that time was engaged in his employer’s business within the scope of his employment and driving his employer’s machine with its authority, express or implied. Coal Company vs. Rivoux, 88 O.S. 18. These additional facts necessary to be established, may only be inferred from the fact that Black was the agent or employee of the Company. This cannot be done, for the reason that one inference may not be predicated on another inference. Baking Company vs. Middleton, Volume 36 page 248, Unreported Opinions Court of Appeals.

It follows that the trial court correctly and properly directed a verdict for the defendant and its action in that behalf is affirmed.

Mauck and Farr, JJ, concur.
OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

248) ll-K- (I) -61 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

p.i 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:57AM Sheet 248 of 325 
P.2 

/A\ Pl /a = 0 

II-K-(I)-61 

SELECTED CONTROL LEVELS FOR NEW INDUSTRIAL BOILERS. 

EEA, Inc. 

June 10, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-61
#### Mary I. Quigley, Appellant, *v.*Locomotive Engineers Mutual Life and Accident Insurance Association, Respondent.

Argued January 26, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*568
      *James P. Donovan*for appellant.

*Clarence E. Weisel*and *Robert H. Wendt*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Hubbs, J.
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [ER-FRL-6607-2] 

Availability of EPA comments prepared April 24, 2000 through April 28, 2000 pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167. 

An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20157). 

## Draft EISs 

ERP No. D-BOP-K80041-CA Rating EC2, Lassen County Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), Construction and Operation, To House Median-Security Inmates and Federal Prison Camp, Possible Site is Southwest Site, Lassen County, CA. 

*Summary:*                     EPA expressed concern that potential air, water and waste impacts from prison industry were not fully disclosed. EPA requested that next document provide additional information on the above issues and building design.                 

## Final EISs 

ERP No. F-AFS-J65297-MT Bull Lake Estates Road Access Project, Implementation, Easement Grant Permit, Kootenai National Forest, Three Rivers Rangers District, Lincoln County, MT. 

*Summary:*                     While EPA did not object to the statutorily mandated road access, it did express environmental concerns regarding potential secondary project impacts to water quality, fisheries, and wildlife.                 

ERP No. F-TPT-K61147-CA Presidio of San Francisco General Management Plan, Implementation, New Development and Uses within the Letterman Complex, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, City and County of San Francisco, CA. 

*Summary:*                     No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.                 

Dated: May 9, 2000. 

Joseph C. Montgomery, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 00-12016 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

85) ll-K- (B) -73 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:51 AM Sheet 85 of 325 
P.2 

it 

II-K-(B)-73 

REVISED INDUSTRIAL BOILER RETIREMENT RATE. 

Letter from T. Hogan, EEA to R. Short, EPA:SASD. 

May 26, 1981, 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-73
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 94 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Logistics Agency

Privacy Act of 1974; Defense Logistics Agency

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency.

ACTION: Notice to delete a record system.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency is proposing to delete a system 
of records from its inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy 
Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
June 14, 2000 unless comments are received which result in a contrary 
determination.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Privacy Act Officer, Headquarters, 
Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: CAAR, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 
2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Susan Salus at (703) 767-6183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Logistics Agency notices for 
systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), 
as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are 
available from the address above.
    The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) 
of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires 
the submission of a new or altered system report.

    Dated: May 9, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
S322.53 DMDC

System name:
    Defense Debt Collection Data Base (May 11, 1999, 64 FR 25310).
    Reason: These records have been transferred to the Defense Finance 
and Accounting Service and are now being maintained under Privacy Act 
system of records T7332, Defense Debt Management System.
[FR Doc. 00-12070 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-F
```
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

SROVERSELLERS 

ATT~~~~~ GENERAL 

Eunoreb.la Fomer Gsrrloon, Jr., Dfraator 

lB~artf!lent ar Tub110 SaZoty 

Camp Sabry 

huat.ltl 9, Tsxem 

Deur 3l.r: 

-mix fnobell 

oertltioate 

Your reoent Fe 

department readsas folio 

inion of this 

ehlole whloh 

oertlfiaate or 

m %otor Vehiole' me~~8 every kind 

v8n or propelled veh~lole no~r or hereSeotion 8b of Artiole 667sI, V. A. C. Y., relating 

to the registration of vehlolea gr0viaaS 88 iollowa: 
Honorable Coiner Garrison, Jr., pape 2 

?:o motor vehlole Ehall be reFlsteraa and 

lioeneed whloh has a tote1 outAIde width, lnolw,- 

Ing, any load theseon, 

(913) lnoheo, * * *" 

of more thnn ninety-air 

Thus ft Is #eon that the true!: Involved here is 

not a %otor rshiale’ within the neanlng 0r the LagIslatIve 

definition In the Vertirloate o? Title hat*, beaauee It I5 

not only InelIgIble for registration but Ita cqlatrstlon 

Is l peolfloally prohib:ted. Tt In olear thrt the Csrtffloate 

Of Title Act only applies to mOtOr vehloler aa 4atIned therein and the operative pro~irIon5 of tha not ode that term 

throughout. Provirrlon i8 iaede ror tha mrrrndor and osncellatlon of a oertfrZcets of title when a vehlolo loam 

its oharaotar as a zaotor vahlole a6 therein defined. Art. 

1436-1, Sec. 37, V. A. l?. 0. Also Soot ion 60 of the warn@ 

Ar tic le l t8tos that : 

Se oonolude that the owner of tha over-width truok 

inquired ebout Is not entftl6d to reoelve a oertiffaata or 

title for the rehlole though he might oporata ltfo a limited 

degree over the publio hi&ways under a speolal geralt.
#### § 375.31 Demonstration flights of foreign aircraft.

Flights of foreign civil aircraft within the United States may be made for the purpose of demonstration of the aircraft or any component thereof (including demonstrations at airshows), provided no persons, cargo or mail are carried for remuneration or hire.
Turn Accessibility Mode OnSkip to content

 AccessibilityContact UsFAQsEspañol Other LanguagesSign In

Social SecurityOfficial Social Security Website

Menu

- Home
- Numbers   & Cards  - New or Replacement Social     Security Number and Card
- Change     Your Name
- Social     Security Numbers for Children
- Replacement Medicare     Card

- Benefits  Learn- Retirement
- Disability
- Medicare
- Survivors
- Supplemental     Security Income
- Retirement     Estimator
- Calculators
- After Incarceration
- Benefits outside the     U.S.
- Spouses
- Children
- Children     with Disabilities
- Government     Employees
- Potential     Entitlement
- Social     Security Statement
Apply- Apply Online for     Retirement
- Apply Online for     Disability
- Apply Online for     Medicare Only
- Extra Help with     Medicare Prescription Costs
- Apply for Spouse's     Benefits
- Apply for Child's     Benefits
- Check Application     Status
- Appeal a     Decision
Manage- Benefit     Verification/
§ 29.1431 Electronic equipment. ( a ) Radio communication and navigation equipment installations must be free from hazards in themselves, in their method of operation, and in their effects on other components, under any critical environmental conditions.
( b ) Radio communication and navigation equipment, controls, and wiring must be installed so that operation of any one unit or system of units will not adversely affect the simultaneous operation of any other radio or electronic unit, or system of units, required by this chapter.
[No. 28210-1-II.

Division Two.

November 8, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Craig Nathan Idlett, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 01-1-04273-6, Frederick B. Hayes, J., entered December 14, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., and Houghton, J.
**Exhibit
      32.2**














**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL**


**OFFICER
      REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING**


**FINANCIAL
      STATEMENTS**









I,
      Jeffrey T. Fisher, the Chief Financial Officer of Renaissance Media Group LLC,
      Renaissance Media (Louisiana) LLC, Renaissance Media (Tennessee) LLC and
      Renaissance Media Capital Corporation (the "Company") in compliance with 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
      for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission:




·
            fully
                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
                Exchange
                Act of 1934; and




·
            the
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.









/s/
      Jeffrey T. Fisher


Jeffrey
      T. Fisher


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)


March
      30,
      2006
§ 77.13 Applicability. This subpart describes the standards used for determining obstructions to air navigation, navigational aids, or navigational facilities. These standards apply to the following: ( a ) Any object of natural growth, terrain, or permanent or temporary construction or alteration, including equipment or materials used and any permanent or temporary apparatus.
( b ) The alteration of any permanent or temporary existing structure by a change in its height, including appurtenances, or lateral dimensions, including equipment or material used therein.