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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN ITEM 8 ON PAGE 20 OF THE COMPANY'S REPORT ON FORM
10-K FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          68,646
<SECURITIES>                                     3,970
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,066
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,074
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,470
<PP&E>                                         143,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 206,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          133,778
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   206,310
<SALES>                                        243,152
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               243,152
<CGS>                                          154,764
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  154,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               146,279
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (55,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (55,573)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (55,573)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.62)


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34109-34110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14302]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0199; Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-9]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; North Dakota

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the NPRM published in the Federal 
Register on May 6, 2014 proposing to amend Class E airspace in the 
State of North Dakota. The FAA has determined that withdrawal of the 
NPRM is warranted as additional analysis is needed.

DATES: The proposed rule published May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25757) is 
withdrawn as of June 15, 2015.

[[Page 34110]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service 
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Northwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 
817-222-4075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An NPRM was published in the Federal 
Register of May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25757) to amend Title 14 Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending 
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface in the State of North Dakota, 
to enable Minneapolis ARTCC to have greater latitude to use radar 
vectors and/or altitude changes that would provide a more efficient use 
of airspace within the NAS. Additional analysis is needed; therefore, 
the NPRM is being withdrawn.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal

    In consideration of the foregoing, the NPRM for FR Doc. FAA-2014-
0199, Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-9, as published in the Federal 
Register of May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25757) (FR Doc. 2014-10391), is hereby 
withdrawn.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g) 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 
10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 26, 2015.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-14302 Filed 6-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Celulosa Arauco y Constitución S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company.

Date: April 29, 2015



/s/ Matías DomeykoName:    Matías DomeykoTitle:    Chief Executive Officer


Date: April 29, 2015



/s/ Robinson TajmuchName:    Robinson TajmuchTitle:    Senior Vice-President Comptroller
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. W I L L I A M A L V I N W I C K , J r ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 30108 D . C. N o . 1 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 0 1 3 - RFC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont ana R i c ha r d F . C e bul l , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ay24, 2011 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W i l l i a m A l vi n W i c k, J r . , appe a l s hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and the 36 0-m on th sent ence i m po se d for aggravat ed se xu alabuse, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 1153( a ) a nd 2241( a ) ( 1) . P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S. 73 8 (19 67 ), W i ck’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef

st at i ng there ar e no g roun ds for r el i ef , 

# FI LED JU N 09 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 30108 2 al o n g w i th a m o t i o n t o w i th d raw as co u n sel o f reco rd . W i ckh as fi l eda p ro se supp l em ent albri ef

chal l engi ng hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 75, 80- 81 ( 1988) , di s c l os e s no a r guabl e gr ounds f orr e l i e f on di r e c tappe a l a s t o the d e f e n d a n t’s c o n v ic tio n . W e d is m is s th e ap p e a l o f th e s e n te n c e in lig h t o f th e v a lid ap p e a l w a iv e r . See U

ni ted States v. N

gu ye n , 23 5 F . 3d 11 79 , 11 82 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). W e de c l i ne t o a ddr e s s W i c k’ s c l a i m s of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l on di r e c tappe a l a s the r e c or d i s i ns uf f i c i e nt l yde ve l ope d and hi s l e ga l r e pr e s e nt a t i on w as no tso i nadequ at e thati tcan b e c on clud ed atthi s poi ntthathe ob vi ou sl y w as d e n ie dh is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c o u n s e l. Se e U ni te d States v . McKe nna , 327 F . 3d 83 0, 84 5 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( “ C l ai m s of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l ar e general l y i napp ropri at e on d i re ctappeal . ”) . C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D. T h e co n v i ct i o n i s A FFI R M ED , an dth e ap p e a l o f th e s e n te n c e is DI S MI S S E D.
Carroll

No. 80-109

#### Joanne M. Dunn v. Kenneth G. Dunn

September 26, 1980

*Concemi & Wight,*of Lawrence, Massachusetts *(Stephen W. Wight*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Wiggin & Nourie,*of Manchester *(Richard B. McNamara*orally), for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

The plaintiff filed a libel for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and treatment so as to seriously injure health. The defendant filed a cross-libel on the ground of irreconcilable differences resulting in an irremediable breakdown of the marriage. The case was heard by a Master *(Bernard I. Snierson,*Esq.), who denied the plaintiffs motion for a continuance which was filed on the day of trial and which was based on her ill-health. This denial was a matter within the court’s discretion, and we find no abuse. *See Riccardi v. Garabedian,*118 N.H. 191, 384 A.2d 788 (1978). In any event, the issue is moot in view of our ruling on the next issue.

At trial, the plaintiff sought to introduce evidence of the defendant’s extreme cruelty and treatment so serious as to injure *663the plaintiffs health. The master, whose report was approved by the Superior Court *(Wyman,*J.), refused to permit the introduction of such evidence in order to prove her ground for divorce. The plaintiff has appealed from this ruling.

 The ruling was based on too expansive a reading of *Murphy v. Murphy,*116 N.H. 672, 366 A.2d 479 (1976). We have this date held that the addition of the new no-fault cause for divorce, RSA 458:7-a (Supp. 1979), did not repeal any of the other causes based on fault and that a party who seeks a divorce on a fault-related cause cannot be deprived of the opportunity to prove that cause merely because the other party relied on the no-fault cause. *Baker v. Baker,*120 N.H. 645, 421 A.2d 998 (1980). Thus, it was error on the part of the trial court to exclude the plaintiffs offer of evidence on her alleged causes for divorce.

Because there must be a new trial at which a different decree with regard to alimony may result, we need not consider the plaintiffs claim that the award was inequitable.

*Remanded; new trial.*
EXHIBIT 31.1


I, Floyd Warkol, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of KSW, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
     were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
          controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
          about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
          of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
          evaluation; and

          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
          the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
          or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
          other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
          internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 29, 2005


                  /s/ Floyd Warkol
                  -----------------------
                  Floyd Warkol
                  Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7230

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD HAROLD SAUNDERS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-94-17, CA-97-168-3-P)

Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 18, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William P. Robinson, Jr., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert

Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Saunders, Nos. CR-94-17; CA-97-168-3-P

(W.D.N.C. July 16, 1997). 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
AAM

- 1 3

- 416

- E June 24, 2013

Exemption No. 10807 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 1 3

- 0 5 12

M r

. David Powell Summit Aviation, LLC

2440 SW Aviation Street Bentonville, AR 72712

Dear M r

. Powell :

T his letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter da ted May 23, 2013 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Summit Aviation ( Summit ) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Summit to cover its safety

se nsitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program

.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in ac ting on this petition would be detrimental to Summit

.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• th ey are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 ;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Summit Aviati on , LLC an exemption from 14 CFR
part 120 to the extent necessary t o allow Summit to cover its safety

- sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program , subj ect to the conditions and limitations described

below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Summit are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations a t all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of

the Summit part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on July 31 , 201 5 , unless sooner sup erseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Frederick E. Tilton, M. D. Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2014 - 0145 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM183AD

7X- 182, R3 --- 2/26/13 7X- 182, R2 --- 6/1/12 7X- 182, R1 --- 12/7/11 7X- 182 --- 12/17/10 SAFRAN 870 - 32 - 021, R1 --- 12/21/12

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental A D Docket



### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
No. 11-8933.

#### Smith *v.*Lafrinere et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
You are here: EPA Home Region 10 Air Page SIPs/NWAPA SIPNWAPA104



## SIP - NWAPA 104

SECTION 104 - ADOPTION OF STATE and FEDERAL LAWS and RULES

104.1 All provisions of State Law as it now e xists or may be hereafter amended, which is pertinent to the operation of the Authority is here by adopted by reference and made part of the Regulation of the Authority as of Octob er 13, 1994. Specifically, there is adopted by reference the Washington St ate Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94), the

Administrative Procedures Act (RCW 34.04) and RCW 43. 21A and 43.21B and the following state rules: WAC 173-400, WA C 173-401, WAC 173-405, WAC 173-410, WAC 173-415, WAC 173-420, WAC 173-4 21, WAC 173-422, WAC 173-425, WAC 173-430, WAC 173-433, WAC 173-434, WAC173-435, WAC 173-450, WAC 173- 460, WAC 173-470, WAC 173-474, WAC 173-475, WAC 173-4 80 , WAC 173-481, WAC 173-490, WAC 173-491, WAC 173-4 92, WAC 173-495, and WAC 173-802.

104.2 All provisions of the foll owing federal rules are here by adopted by reference and made part of the Regulation of the Authority as of October 13, 1994: 40 CFR Part 60 (Standards of Performance For New Stationary Sources) subparts A, B, C, Ca, Cb, D, Da, Db, Dc, E, Ea, F, G, H, I, J, K, Ka, Kb, L, M, N, Na, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AAa, BB, CC, DD, EE, GG, HH, KK, LL, MM, NN, PP, QQ, RR, SS, TT, UU, VV, WW, XX, AAA, BBB, DDD, FFF, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ, KKK, LLL, NNN, OOO, PPP, QQQ, RRR, SSS, TTT, UUU, VVV; and 40 CFR Part 61 (National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants) Subparts A, B, C, D, E, F, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, T, V, W, Y, BB, FF and 40 CFR Part 63 (National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pol lutants for Source Categories) Subparts A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, L, M, and Q.

State effective: 11/13/94, EPA effective 12/26/95 

### Region 10: the Pacific Northwest Last u p dated on Saturda y, March 12th

, 2011. URL: htt p : //y osemite.e p a. g ov / r10 / air p a g e.nsf / SIPs / NWAPA / SIPNWAPA104 Page 1 of 1 SIP - NWAPA 104

3/15/2011 htt p :// y osemite.e p a. g ov/r10/air p a g e.nsf/283d45bd5bb068e68825650f0064cdc2/cc51302d8

...
No. 11-9058.

#### Gilkeson *v.*Lee, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 20, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Salutation Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Wenching Liou, Taipei, TAIWAN; Richard G. Golden, III, New Orleans, LA; Kaspar Hellden, Ostergotland, SWEDEN: WalletWare, Inc., Irvine, CA; Continental Automated Buildings Association, Ontario, CANADA; Heath Westover, Marysville, WA; AOL, Irvine, CA; Roger deBry, Orem, UT; and Pistachio, Inc., Portland, OR have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Salutation Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 30, 1995, Salutation Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 27, 1995 (60 FR 33233).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 6, 1999. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 28, 2000 (65 FR 24984).                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-16481 Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M