alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008164EN.01001701.xml

| 27.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/17

---

Corrigenda to information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 126 of 23 May 2008
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 126 of 23 May 2008

(2008/C 164/11)

On page 10, State aid XA 29/08, under ‘Duration of scheme or individual aid award’:

for:

‘1.1.2008 — 1.12.2008’,

read:

'1 January 2008 — 31 December 2008'.

---
2:14-cv-12700-GAD-RSW Doc # 12 Filed 08/26/14 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 115
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

PENNY RUMSEY, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

d/b/a LIGHTYEAR WIRELESS, a 

Georgia Corporation, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 2:14-cv-12700 

 Hon. Gershwin Drain 

 

DEFENDANT BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.’S 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

 In accordance with Local Rule 83.4 and Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, Defendant Birch Communications, Inc. (“Birch”) hereby files its 

Certificate Corporate Disclosure Statement and in support thereof respectfully 

shows the Court as follows: 

Birch Communications is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Birch 

Communications Holdings Inc., a Georgia corporation with its principal place of 

business in Missouri. 

2:14-cv-12700-GAD-RSW Doc # 12 Filed 08/26/14 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 116
2 

Dated: August 26, 2014 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

FRASER TREBILCOCK DAVIS & 

DUNLAP, PC 

By: /s/ Michael P. Donnelly______ 

 Michael Donnelly 

 Michigan Bar No. (P45221) 

 Michael Ashton 

 Michigan Bar No. (P40474) 

124 W. Allegan, Suite 1000 

Lansing, MI 48933 

mdonnelly@fraserlawfirm.com 

mashton@fraserlawfirm.com 

Telephone: (517) 377-0875 

Facsimile: (517) 482-0887 

 JONES DAY 

 Gregory R. Hanthorn 

 Georgia Bar No. 323937 

 Lynsey M. Barron 

 Georgia Bar No. 661005 

 1420 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 800 

 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

 ghanthorn@jonesday.com 

 lbarron@jonesday.com 

 Telephone: (404) 581-3939 

 Facsimile: (404) 581-8330 

 Attorneys for 

 Birch Communications, Inc.

2:14-cv-12700-GAD-RSW Doc # 12 Filed 08/26/14 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 117
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on August 26, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the 

foregoing document is being served this day on the persons listed below via 

transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or mail. 

Ari J. Scharg 

ascharg@edelson.com 

John Ochoa 

jochoa@edelson.com 

Mark Eisen 

meisen@edelson.com 

EDELSON PC 

350 North LaSalle Street, 

Suite 1300 

Chicago, Illinois 60654 

Tel: 312.589.6370 

Fax: 312.589.6378 

Henry M. Scharg 

hmsattyatlaw@aol.com 

LAW OFFICE OF HENRY 

M. SCHARG 

718 Ford Building 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

Tel: 248.596.1111 

Fax: 248.671.0335 

 Stefan Coleman 

law@stefancoleman.com 

LAW OFFICES OF 

STEFAN COLEMAN, 

LLC 

201 South Biscayne 

Boulevard, 28th Floor 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Tel: 877.333.9427 

Fax: 888.498.8946 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 By: /s/ Michael P. Donnelly______ 

 Michael Donnelly 

 Michigan Bar No. (P45221) 

 Attorney for Birch Communications, Inc. 

2:14-cv-12700-GAD-RSW Doc # 12 Filed 08/26/14 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 118
§ 83.15 Designation by entity of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures. ( a ) *Designation of responsible employee.* A federally supported entity shall designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under this part, including any investigation of any complaint communicated to such entity alleging its noncompliance with this part or alleging any action which would be prohibited by this part. The entity shall notify all of its students and employees who work directly with students and applicants for admission of the name, office address and telephone number of the employee or employees appointed pursuant to this paragraph.
( b ) *Complaint procedure of entity.* A federally supported entity shall adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any action which would be prohibited by this part. Such procedures shall be in writing and available to all present and prospective students and employees.
#### Frank W. Bartlett, Respondent, *v.*Hunter Arms Company, Appellant.

*Bartlett*v. *Hunter Arms Co.,*130 App. Div. 905, affirmed.

(Argued January 27, 1910;

decided February 15, 1910.)

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 17,1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his employer. Also motion to dismiss said appeal.

*610
      *Elisha B. Powell*for appellant.

*Burton B. Parsons*for respondent.

Motion denied. Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. Concur: Cullen, Cli. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.
Process Control System Overview

– Multi

- Point Ground Flare Stages

The multi

- point ground flare systems for the PDH

- 1 project and the LHC

- 9 project consist of several stages. The first stage is steam

- a ssisted and is always in service. The remaining stages (Stages 2 and higher) are pressure

- assisted and are in/out of service via staging logic. The burner design requires the inlet pressure to be within a certain range to operate with smokeless flaring. The staging system opens and closes staging valves in order to keep the header pressure between these desired ranges. The staging system consists of a manifold header with automated valves (staging valves) used to direct flare gas flow from the flare header to the burners. Input from pressure transmitte rs on the inlet header opens and closes staging valves according to gas pressures. Each stage is operated automatically with an actuated fail

- closed staging valve that is only open or closed (no modulation)

. Buckling pin bypass valves are included in the staging scheme to provide the intended protection in the case of a staging valve malfunction. The control system monitors the main header pressure. As the pressure rises (indicating more flow), the next stage is opened. Should the pressure continue to r ise, the next stage opens. If the pressure falls, the staging valves close in reverse sequence. Stage 1 remains online continuously and is steam

- assisted. Stage 1 does not use a staging valve; however there is a control valve to limit the volumetric flow of the waste gas. As the flow increases in the header

a s it starts to pressurize, the control system monitors the exit velocity from the stage 1 burners. When it approaches the allowable limits, the control valve will start to close to limit the flow. A s this happens, the pressure in the header will continue to increase until stage 2 opens. The stage 1 control valve continues to stay partially closed to limit the volumetric flow. Once the flow decreases , and all the upper stages (2+) are closed, the co ntrol valve will open wide open again. This stage operates down to the minimum purge rate required for th e flare s

.

Cross

- light testing of the individual burners at an off

- site test facility was done in April to confirm that the burners will properly ign ite when a new stage goes into service. The burners performed as expected at the expected staging pressure.
#### § 95.641 Applicability of rules for charging equipment in subpart G of this part.

ADP equipment, as well as other equipment acquired under public assistance programs, is subject to subpart G of this part. Among other things, subpart G provides that a State may charge only depreciation or use allowances for equipment with unit acquisition cost of over $25,000. However, for ADP equipment HHS will consider requests for waivers of that restriction. If the acquisition of the equipment is part of an APD that is subject to the prior approval requirements of subpart F, the State may submit the request for a waiver as part of the APD.
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15075 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15076 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15077 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15078 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15079 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15080 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15081 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15082 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15083 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15084 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15085 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15086 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15087 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15088 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15089 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15090 1983HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15091 1983
Exhibit 99.1

                            Certification pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Michael R. Kallet, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Eric E. Stickels,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Oneida Financial Corp. (the
 "Company"), each certify in his/her capacity as an officer of the Company that
  he/she has reviewed the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
  quarter ended September 30, 2002 and that to the best of his/her knowledge:

(7)  the report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Sections 13(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(8)  the information  contained in the report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





  October 29, 2002                     /s/ Michael R. Kallet
--------------------                   -----------------------------------------
Date                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


  October 29, 2002                     /s/ Eric E. Stickels
--------------------                   -----------------------------------------
Date                                       Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Order entered December 19, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00954-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF LORIE RUTH BAKER 

AND GREGORY JOSEPH FINSTER

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-13669

ORDER

The clerk’s and reporter’s record are overdue. By letter dated October 31, 2018, Dallas 

County District Clerk informed the Court that the record had been prepared but was being held 

for nonpayment. In the letter, Ms. Pitre acknowledges that appellant filed an affidavit of 

inability to pay on September 13, 2018. She further states that her office “will honor the 

affidavit for all requests filed on or after this date.” We ORDER Ms. Pitre to file the clerk’s 

record by December 28, 2018. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(c).

We ORDER Glenda Finkley, Official Court Reporter for the 256th Judicial District 

Court, to file the reporter’s record by January 18, 2019. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(c).

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre, Ms. 

Finkley, and all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41397

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERARDO CORTEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-210-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gerardo Cortez

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior

conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 107

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59780, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 107.113 Industrial personnel.

Industrial personnel are all persons, exclusive of the required crew as set forth in the Certificate of Inspection, carried on board a mobile offshore drilling unit for the sole purpose of carrying out the industrial business or functions of the unit.
#### § 900.107 Role of lead and cooperating agencies.

In accordance with § 900.104, the Commission may defer the lead agency role to other federal agencies in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5, and the Commission will then exercise its role as either a joint lead or a cooperating agency in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6.
#### § 618.210 Military and merchant marine educational institutions.

These Title IX regulations do not apply to an educational institution whose primary purpose is the training of individuals for a military service of the United States or for the merchant marine.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                                 Bacou USA, Inc.
                 Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

                        Year Ended December 31, 1996 (1)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                             <C>
Primary:
Weighted average shares
     outstanding                                 16,406,022

Net effect of dilutive stock options
     based on the treasury stock method
     using the average market price                  30,103
                                                -----------
     Total                                       16,436,125
                                                ===========
Net income                                      $19,376,833
                                                ===========

Per share amount                                $      1.18
                                                ===========
Fully Diluted:
Weighted average shares outstanding              16,406,879

Net effect of dilutive stock options
     based on the treasury stock method
     using the greater of average or period
     end market price                                30,103
                                                -----------
          Total                                  16,436,982
                                                ===========
Net income                                      $19,376,833
                                                ===========
Per share amount                                $      1.18
                                                ===========
</TABLE>

(1)      The Company had no common stock equivalents or other potentially
         dilutive securities for any period prior to 1996 and therefore has only
         presented a computation of per share earnings for the year ended
         December 31, 1996.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-808.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EDUCATION 

 Agreement between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CHILE 

Signed at Washington August 8, 2007 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
CHILE 

Education 

Agreement signed at Washington August 8, 2007; 

 Entered into force August 8, 2007.
§ 98.65 Audits and financial reporting. ( a ) Each Lead Agency shall have an audit conducted after the close of each program period in accordance with 45 CFR part 75, subpart F, and the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996.
( b ) Lead Agencies are responsible for ensuring that subgrantees are audited in accordance with appropriate audit requirements.
( c ) Not later than 30 days after the completion of the audit, Lead Agencies shall submit a copy of their audit report to the legislature of the State or, if applicable, to the Tribal Council(s). Lead Agencies shall also submit a copy of their audit report to the HHS Inspector General for Audit Services, as well as to their cognizant agency, if applicable.
( d ) Any amounts determined through an audit not to have been expended in accordance with these statutory or regulatory provisions, or with the Plan, and that are subsequently disallowed by the Department shall be repaid to the Federal government, or the Secretary will offset such amounts against any other CCDF funds to which the Lead Agency is or may be entitled.
( e ) Lead Agencies shall provide access to appropriate books, documents, papers and records to allow the Secretary to verify that CCDF funds have been expended in accordance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the program, and with the Plan.
( f ) The audit required in paragraph (a) of this section shall be conducted by an agency that is independent of the State, Territory or Tribe as defined by generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General, or a public accountant who meets such independent standards.
( g ) Lead Agencies shall submit financial reports, in a manner specified by ACF, quarterly for each fiscal year until funds are expended.
( h ) At a minimum, a State or territorial Lead Agency's quarterly report shall include the following information on expenditures under CCDF grant funds, including Discretionary (which includes realloted funding and any funds transferred from the TANF block grant), Mandatory, and Matching Funds (which includes redistributed funding); and State Matching and Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) Funds: ( 1 ) Child care administration;
( 2 ) Quality activities, including any sub-categories of quality activities as required by ACF;
( 3 ) Direct services for both grant or contracted slots and certificates;
( 4 ) Non-direct services, including: ( i ) Establishment and maintenance of computerized child care information systems;
( ii ) Certificate program cost/eligibility determination;
( iii ) All other non-direct services; and
( 5 ) Such other information as specified by the Secretary.
( i ) Tribal Lead Agencies shall submit financial reports annually in a manner specified by ACF.
[63 FR 39981, July 24, 1998, as amended at 81 FR 67591, Sept. 30, 2016; 89 FR 15416, Mar. 1, 2024]
§ 108.109 Classification society standards. ( a ) Any person who desires to use the rules of a classification society, other than the American Bureau of Shipping, to meet requirements in this Subchapter must request recognition of that society from the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center. The relevant rules must be submitted with the request.
[CGD 73-251, 43 FR 56808, Dec. 4, 1978, as amended by CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995]
#### § 690.112 Review by institution.

Research covered by this policy that has been approved by an IRB may be subject to further appropriate review and approval or disapproval by officials of the institution. However, those officials may not approve the research if it has not been approved by an IRB.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUPERIOR SERVICES,  INC. AS OF AND FOR THE
NINE  MONTHS  ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30,  1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         60,738
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  43,779
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,438)
<INVENTORY>                                    1,468
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,332
<PP&E>                                         324,838
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (113,662)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 410,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          45,779
<BONDS>                                        29,224
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       306
<OTHER-SE>                                     260,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   410,798
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               183,501
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,835
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               530
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,648
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                23,904
<INCOME-TAX>                                   8,787
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            15,117
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   15,117
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .55
        

</TABLE>
#### CARL LUNDKVIST, ADMINISTRATOR AD PROSEQUENDUM, v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL.

Decided April 19, 1929.

For the plaintiff, *Alexander Simpson.*

For the defendant, *Hobart & Minard.*

Pee Cueiam.

The petition for reargument in the above-entitled case is denied.