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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        18546576
<SECURITIES>                                  15877383
<RECEIVABLES>                                154082535
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2082031
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3402096
<PP&E>                                         5858928
<DEPRECIATION>                                  418403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               288920798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        238725852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       1620000
<OTHER-SE>                                    47600334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 288920798
<SALES>                                       12070649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              17999576
<CGS>                                          5778758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 12220818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5647612
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             122115073
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                7612788
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2593128
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5019660
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.10


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman BLAKE R. GILLUM

United States Air Force

ACM S32240

08 January 2015

Sentence adjudged 6 March 2014 by SP CM convened at Joint Base San

Antonio

- Lackland

, Texas . Military Judge: Donald Eller, Jr. (sitting alone).

Approved S entence : Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 60 days , and

reduction to E

- 1

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Joy L. Primoli

.

Appellate Counsel for the United S tates: Lieutenant Colonel Katherine E.

Oler.

Before

MITCHELL, WEBER, and CONTOVEROS

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent

under Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occ urred. Article 66(c),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 200 0).

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID CARROLL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-519; CA-04-1279-1) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Carroll, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: David Carroll seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as successive and untimely his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carroll has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Carroll’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. SeeUnited States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). We conclude that Carroll has not satisfied the applicable standards necessary to obtain- 3 - authorization under the statute. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Williams , 330 F.3d 277, 281-82 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we decline to authorize Carroll to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 102-72.30 What are the different types of delegations related to real estate leasing? Delegations related to real estate leasing include the following: ( a ) Categorical space delegations and agency special purpose space delegations (see § 102-73.140 of this title).
( b ) The Administrator of General Services has issued a standing delegation of authority (under a program known as “Can't Beat GSA Leasing”) to the heads of all Federal agencies to accomplish all functions relating to leasing of up to 19,999 rentable square feet of general purpose space for terms of up to 20 years and below prospectus level requirements, regardless of geographic location. This delegation includes some conditions Federal agencies must meet when conducting the procurement themselves, such as training in lease contracting and reporting data to GSA.
( c ) An ACO delegation, in addition to lease management authority, provides Federal agencies with limited contracting officer authority to perform such duties as paying and withholding lessor rent and modifying lease provisions that do not change the lease term length or the amount of space under lease.
[70 FR 67789, Nov. 8, 2005, as amended at 73 FR 2167, Jan. 14, 2008]
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0676 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-182-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 out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

$ 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

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

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 be 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? Explain

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 specific requirements 

for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES NO 

Explanation:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                    Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                                               46,268
<SECURITIES>                                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        21,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                                            683
<INVENTORY>                                                          16,619
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     87,211
<PP&E>                                                               71,951
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       43,632
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      122,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                21,518
<BONDS>                                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                              3,817
<OTHER-SE>                                                           95,916
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        122,661
<SALES>                                                             104,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    105,013
<CGS>                                                                82,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        94,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      10,808
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          3,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   6,908
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                          6,908
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                          1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          1.81
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16385]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed During the Week Ending 
June 16, 2000

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sections 412 and 414. 
Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the 
application.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7516.
    Date Filed:June 13, 2000.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: CAC/28/Meet/004/00 dated May 29, 2000; Expedited Reso 813; 
Intended effective date: July 1, 2000.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7539.
    Date Filed: June 16, 2000.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Request of IATA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sections 41308, 
41309 and Parts 303.03, 303.05 and 303.03(c), on behalf of member 
airlines of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) that the 
Department approve and confer antitrust immunity on an amendment to the 
Provisions for the Conduct of IATA Traffic Conferences (the 
Provisions).

Andrea M. Jenkins,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-16385 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
No. 11-8900.

#### Wilkinson *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                            Exhibit 27.1

                    TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P.
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE


     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
financial  statements  of Time Warner  Entertainment  Company,  L.P. for the six
months ended June 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                              0000893657
<NAME>                             TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      179
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                             3,374
<ALLOWANCES>                                696
<INVENTORY>                               3,059
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          3,616
<PP&E>                                   11,402
<DEPRECIATION>                            4,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           23,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     5,669
<BONDS>                                   6,231
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                6,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             23,568
<SALES>                                   6,624
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          6,624
<CGS>                                     4,262
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             4,262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             430
<INCOME-TAX>                                 61
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         369
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                   524
<NET-INCOME>                               (155)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0



</TABLE>
No. 10-11107.

#### Moore *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
#### § 102-74.385 What is the policy concerning conformity with official signs and directions?

Persons in and on property must at all times comply with official signs of a prohibitory, regulatory or directory nature and with the lawful direction of Federal police officers and other authorized individuals.
Untitled Document





 






 Exhibit 10.1



 


 







 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








 











 








  









 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


A-9
501 P.2d 969

#### Elmer W. HAYCRAFT, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Western Greyhound Lines, Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 694.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department B.

Oct. 17, 1972.

Elmer W. Haycraft, in pro per.

William C. Wahl, Chief Counsel, Phoenix, for respondent The Industrial Comm, of Ariz.

Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, State Compensation Fund by Harlan J. Cross-man, Phoenix, for respondent employer and respondent carrier.

HAIRE, Chief Judge,

Division 1.

The subject of this review of an Industrial Commission award is the reasonableness of the Commission’s order of June 23, 1971 suspending the petitioning workman’s temporary disability compensation “until said applicant [petitioner] makes himself available for examination by Dr. A. I. Cohen.” Although petitioner was represented by counsel in the initiation and briefing stages of this appeal, he subsequently discharged his counsel and appeared *in propria persona*for oral argument.

*342The Court has reviewed and considered the entire Industrial Commission file in this matter. The record adequately reflects that the petitioner originally suffered a coronary insufficiency of some nature while handling baggage for the respondent employer, and this incident formed the basis for the finding of compensability and the award of temporary disability compensation. However, the medical evidence is very inconclusive as to whether or not the coronary insufficiency incident produced permanent disability — a decision which the Commission must make based upon competent medical evidence.

We do not believe that a detailed chronological review of the file would be of any real benefit to the Bar or to the parties to this review. Suffice it to say that on three different occasions the petitioner failed and refused (through his attorney) to appear for an examination by a doctor requested by the respondent employer.

Both the statutes (A.R.S. §§ 23-1026 and 23-908, subsec. E) and Rules of Procedure before the Industrial Commission of Arizona (Rules 57 and 58, “old” rules, and Rule 14, “new” rules, effective September 1, 1970) grant the Commission the right to refuse further payment of compensation if the claimant unreasonably fails to appear for medical examination.

A review of the file with its very limited and inconclusive medical evidence demonstrates the need for additional medical examinations in this matter, and fully supports the Commission’s finding that petitioner’s failure to appear was unreasonable. Therefore the suspension of benefits was proper.

Under the express conditions of the award, petitioner may pursue his compensation claim by making appropriate arrangements with the Commission for such further medical examinations as may be reasonably required.

The award is affirmed.

EUBANK and JACOBSON, JJ., concur.
No. 10-11148.

#### McMahan *v.*Texas.

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-15-0671

SAT Date: 8/14/2015

Print Date: 9/1/2015

Related cases: Yes

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: LUNG; IRR-E,MM,L; AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-15-0671

FATE: Estimations for covalent ion pair, C18H38ClN, MW 303.96 

Solid

log Kow = 4.31 (E) 

S = Disp. (E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 °C (E)

BP > 400 °C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

log Koc = 5.55 (E)

log Fish BCF = 1.85 (E)

log Fish BAF = 2.42 (E) 
POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg; OECD 301D (Closed Btl): Analog: CAS 

112-90-3: 

 44%/28d, 72%/42d.

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Not absorbed through the skin, poor absorption from the 

GI tract; moderate absorption from the lung (analog). Concern for surfactant effects on the lung; 

irritation to eye, mucous membranes and lung based on surfactant properties of the compounds.

 Ecotox:

Test 

Organism

Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * 0.11 CASRN 112-90-3 / 

SIDS

daphnid 48-h LC50 * 0.011 CASRN 112-90-3 / 

SIDS

green algal 96-h EC50 0.001 0.03 CASRN 112-90-3 / 

SIDS (biomass)

fish _ chronic 

value

0.001

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.001

algal _ chronic 

value

0.001 0.008 ACR of 4 (CASRN 

112-90-3 / SIDS)

Sewage 

Sludge

3-h EC50 _

Sewage 

Sludge

_ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for aliphatic amines; SAR 

chemical class = aliphatic amine; MW 304; S = dispersible in water at 20 C (P); log Kow = 7.49 

(EPI, free amine); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean 

measured concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb) 

Acute 

 2

Concentration of Concern 1