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

<ARTICLE>        UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ENERGEN CORPORATION FOR THE NINE-MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>            0000277595
<NAME>           ENERGEN CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                       PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>           336,170
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>         539,916
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              248,487
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>             37,500
<OTHER-ASSETS>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,162,073
<COMMON>                                303
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>           214,936
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 192,435
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>      404,801
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                365,988
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  147,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                 0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>            0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>         6,648
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                 0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>               0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                          0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>      237,636
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>     1,162,073
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           453,032
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                  7,241
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          364,116
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          371,357
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>              88,916
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                    1,138
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>       82,813
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             28,053
<NET-INCOME>                         54,760
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>               0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        54,760
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             14,896
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            20,382
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>               78,757
<EPS-BASIC>                            1.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                          1.81


</TABLE>
#### Huguley *v.*Holmes *et al.*

Submitted July 18,-

-Decided December 20, 1906.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Reagan. Pike superior court. June 2, 1906.

*C. J. Lester,*for plaintiff. *B. T. Daniel,*for defendant.

Fish, C. J.

Where in an action to recover damages for alleged trespass upon agricultural land, the title to which was in dispute, and to enjoin ' the alleged trespasser, it appeared, upon an interlocutory hearing of the application for injunction, that the damages were not irreparable, and the evidence as to the solvency of the defendant was conflicting, the discretion of the trial judge in refusing an injunction will not he controlled, even though the evidence submitted may have shown that the land in dispute was really the property of the plaintiff. *McFarland*v. *Park Woolen Mills,*113 *Ga.*1072, 1074; *Wiggins*v. *Middleton,*117 *Ga.*162; *Woodstock Iron Works*v. *Leake,*118 *Ga.*642; *Stonecipher*v. *Wilson,*120 *Ga.*466.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 183.420 Batteries. ( a ) Each installed battery must not move more than one inch in any direction when a pulling force of 90 pounds or twice the battery weight, whichever is less, is applied through the center of gravity of the battery as follows: ( 1 ) Vertically for a duration of one minute.
( 2 ) Horizontally and parallel to the boat's center line for a duration of one minute fore and one minute aft.
( 3 ) Horizontally and perpendicular to the boat's center line for a duration of one minute to starboard and one minute to port.
( b ) Each battery must be installed so that metallic objects cannot come in contact with the ungrounded battery terminals.
( c ) Each metallic fuel line and fuel system component within 12 inches and above the horizontal plane of the battery top surface as installed must be shielded with dielectric material.
( d ) Each battery must not be directly above or below a fuel tank, fuel filter, or fitting in a fuel line.
( e ) A vent system or other means must be provided to permit the discharge from the boat of hydrogen gas released by the battery.
( f ) [Reserved]
( g ) Each battery terminal connector must not depend on spring tension for its mechanical connection to the terminal.
[CGD 73-217, 42 FR 5944, Jan. 31, 1977, as amended by CGD 81-092, 48 FR 55736, Dec. 15, 1983]
Exhibit 32.2

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 Report of CECO Environmental Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis W. Blazer, V.P.  Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dennis W. Blazer                                         
|Dennis W. Blazer                                             
|V.P.  Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 10, 2009



33
FeedbackSite MapContact

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  Feedback

															Home/Feedback FeedbackADR2022-02-15T15:01:21-05:00
			
			FeedbackTo offer feedback, receive information, or any ADR question, please use the e-mail form below. This request will be directed to the appropriate agency office or staff member.

* If you have concerns about how your information will be used, see our Privacy Policy. Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
# Reasons for Closing Chart

Protection and Advocacy Agencies 

 FY 2012 Program Performance Reports

Reasons for Closing Individual's Case (P&A Clients) Files

# Reasons for Closing C&T

Protection and Advocacy Agencies 

 FY 2012 Program Performance Reports

Reasons for Closing Individual's Case (P&A Clients) Files

Individual's case lacks merit, 4%
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier:

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost (@$8 5 / h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Replacement 142.0 $ 12,070. 00 $10,000 $ 22,070.00 

### 13 $ 286,910.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 286,910 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also b e used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include sp ecific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
Exhibit 32.1





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 Annual Report of Onvia, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Henry G. Riner, President and Chief Executive Officer 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Henry G. RinerHenry G. RinerPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 16, 2011








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Onvia, Inc. and will be retained by Onvia, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Lora A. Thompson, appellant, v. R. B. Harris, Road Overseer, appellee.

Filed April 17, 1894.

No. 5645.

Boundaries: Monuments: Government Corners. A mound or other monument established by United States surveyors, as section or quarter-section corners, controls both courses and distances.

Appeal from the district court of Hall county. Tried below before Harrison, J.

*231
      *W. TI. Thompson,*for appellant.

*Abbott & Caldwell,*and *Charles O. Ryan, contra.*

Ragan, C.

Lora A. Thompson is the owner of the southwest quarter of section 4, township 11 north, and range 10 west, in Hall county, Nebraska, and brought this suit in the district court of said county against R. B. Harris, who is a road overseer of the road district in which the land of Thompson is situated. She alleged in her petition that Harris was threatening to appropriate, use, and work as a highway .a portion of her land, and prayed for an injunction restraining him. The court below rendered a decree dismissing Thompson’s bill, and she brings the ease here on appeal.

The only controversy in the case is the precise location of the government corner at the corner common to sections 4, 5,8, and 9 of said township. The contention of the appellant is that, starting from the government corner at the northwest corner of said section, extending a line due south to the section line on the south side of said sections 4 and 5, that the point of intersection of said lines should be, and is, the southwest corner of appellant’s land. The contention of the appellee is that the original government corner common to said sections 4, 5, 8, and 9 is thirty-three feet east of where a line extended due south from the northwest corner •of said section 4 would intersect the section line on the south side of said sections 4 and 5.

The contention of the appellant, that starting from the government corner at the northwest corner of section 4 the section line should run due south to the section line on the south side of section 4 and 5, cannot be maintained, unless by so doing said line would pass through the government corner common to sections 4, 5, 8, and 9. The rule is that a mound or other monument established by United States surveyors as a section or quarter-section corner controls *232both courses and distances. *(Johnson v. Preston,*9 Neb., 474; *Bruckner v. Lawrence,*1 Doug. [Mich.], 14; *Climer v. Wallace,*28 Mo., 566.)

The court below found that the government surveyors established the corner common to said sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, at a point thirty-three feet east of the point through which a line extended due south from the northwest corner of section 4 to the south line of said section 5 would pass. The evidence sustains this finding, and the decree appealed from must be

Affirmed.

Harrison, J., took no part in the decision.
petition for exemption

Daniel Jacquet

ANM-115, Airframe & Cabin Safety

to: Joseph.Fletchall 03/26/2012 01:35 PM

Cc: Mark Forseth

Mr. Fletchall, I am writing you in regard to Halliburton's recent petition for exemption, 

dated March 8, 2012.

It doesn't appear that an exemption is the correct method to eliminate the requirement 

to have an Emergency Evacuation Crewmember, on flights with 10 or more passengers, 

because the rules cited in the petition for exemption do not require such an individual. 

As you know, the requirement was one of the compensating features of an equivalent 

level of safety (ELOS). Even with an exemption to the proposed rules, Halliburton 

would still need to comply with the requirements of the ELOS. I suggest you formally 

withdraw Halliburton's petition for an exemption. Halliburton can work with their local 

ACO to try and develop a new ELOS with different compensating factors to eliminate 

the need to have an Emergency Evacuation Crewmember on flights with 10 or more 

passengers.

If you choose to continue with the petition for an exemption, dated March 8, 2012, we 

require the following additional information;

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 11.81(d) requires you provide the reasons 

why granting your request would be in the public interest; that is, how would it benefit 

the public as a whole.

14 CFR 11.81(h) requires you state the reason why you want to exercise the privilege of 

the exemption outside the United States, if granted.

The second to the last paragraph of the petition states “The Halliburton Energy Services 

flight department is requesting a full exemption from the requirements...” and also 

states “Description of compensating design features or alternative standards which 

allow the granting of the ELOS...” 

Please specify if Halliburton wishes to obtain an exemption or an ELOS.

The second to the last paragraph states, “To summarize: The Halliburton Energy 

Services flight department is requesting a full exemption from the requirements of an “

Emergency Evacuation Crew member” as required by FAR 25.807(a)(3); 25.807(g)(2) 

and (3) and 25.807(i)(2), Emergency Exits and FAR 25.807 at Amendment 25-98.”

Please specify if Halliburton is requesting an exemption from 14 CFR 25.807 in 

it’s entirety or 14 CFR 25.807(a)(3), 25.807(g)(2) and (3) and 25.807(i)(2) only. 

Also please note an exemption to the regulations noted above will not eliminate 

the requirement to have an Emergency Evacuation Crewmember required via an 

ELOS. 
The last paragraph refers to Gulfstream G500 and G550 airplanes. Please identify 

these aircraft using the model designation from the Type design Data Sheet.

Best Regards

Dan Jacquet

Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Standards Staff

Cabin Safety

(425) 227-2676
§ 20.703 Presumptions. In each administrative hearing, a presumption— ( a ) Imposes on the party against whom it lies the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption; but
( b ) Does not shift the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of non-persuasion.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4794

AN ACT

To require the Secretary of the Interior to complete a resource study of the 600 mile route through Connecticut,

Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New

York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia, used

by George Washington and General Rochambeau during

the American Revolutionary War.
2

•HR 4794 EH

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 ‘‘Washington-Rocham5 beau Revolutionary Route National Heritage Act of

6 2000’’.

7 SEC. 2. STUDY OF THE WASHINGTON-ROCHAMBEAU REVO8 LUTIONARY ROUTE.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the

10 date on which funds are made available to carry out this

11 section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on

12 Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the

13 Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives,

14 a resource study of the 600 mile route through Con15 necticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jer16 sey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia,

17 used by George Washington and General Jean Baptiste

18 Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau during the

19 American Revolutionary War.

20 (b) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the study re21 quired by subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with

22 State and local historic associations and societies, State

23 historic preservation agencies, and other appropriate orga24 nizations.

25 (c) CONTENTS.—The study shall—
3

•HR 4794 EH

1 (1) identify the full range of resources and his2 toric themes associated with the route referred to in

3 subsection (a), including its relationship to the

4 American Revolutionary War;

5 (2) identify alternatives for National Park Serv6 ice involvement with preservation and interpretation

7 of the route referred to in subsection (a); and

8 (3) include cost estimates for any necessary ac9 quisition, development, interpretation, operation, and

10 maintenance associated with the alternatives identi11 fied pursuant to paragraph (2).

Passed the House of Representatives October 23,

2000.

Attest:

Clerk.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4794

AN ACT

To require the Secretary of the Interior to complete

a resource study of the 600 mile route throughConnecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts,New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia, used by George Washingtonand General Rochambeau during the AmericanRevolutionary War.
**1998-  chickens_and_eggs_12.21.98chickens_and_eggs_11.23.98chickens_and_eggs_10.23.98chickens_and_eggs_09.22.98chickens_and_eggs_08.24.98chickens_and_eggs_07.21.98chickens_and_eggs_06.23.98chickens_and_eggs_05.22.98chickens_and_eggs_04.24.98chickens_and_eggs_03.23.98chickens_and_eggs_02.24.98chickens_and_eggs_01.30.98

**
§ 385.9 Implementation principles. The Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District and other non-Federal sponsors shall, in consultation with the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and other Federal, State, and local agencies, conduct activities, including program-level activities, necessary to implement the Plan. Such activities shall be conducted as part of an integrated implementation program, in accordance with this part, and based on the following principles: ( a ) Individual projects shall be formulated, evaluated, and justified based on their ability to contribute to the goals and purposes of the Plan and on their ability to provide benefits that justify costs on a next-added increment basis.
( b ) Interim goals shall be established in accordance with § 385.38 to provide a means for evaluating restoration success of the Plan at specific time intervals during implementation. Interim targets to evaluate progress on providing for other water-related needs of the region provided for in the Plan shall be established in accordance with § 385.39. Interim goals and interim targets shall be consistent with each other.
( c ) Endorsement of the Plan as a restoration framework is not intended as a constraint on innovation during implementation through the adaptive management process. Continuous improvement of the Plan shall be sought to ensure that new information resulting from changed or unforeseen circumstances, new scientific and technical information, new or updated modeling; information developed through the assessment principles contained in the Plan; and future authorized changes to the Plan are integrated into the implementation of the Plan. The adaptive management process provides a means for analyzing the performance of the Plan and assessing progress towards meeting the goals and purposes of the Plan as well as a basis for improving the performance of the Plan. Improving the performance of the Plan means enhancing the benefits of the Plan in terms of restoration of the natural system while providing for other water-related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 511 

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 10, 2008 

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. 

CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural 

born citizen. 

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, 

to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person 

must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States; 

Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States; 

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers 

or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to 

prevent those children from serving as their country’s 

President; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 511 IS 

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of 

the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by 

the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’; 

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is 

preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are 

assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders; 

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside 

of the United States of America and were understood to 

be eligible to be President; and 

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American 

citizens on an American military base in the Panama 

Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘nat2 ural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Con3 stitution of the United States. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS