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

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000702402
<NAME>                              DYCO OIL & GAS PROGRAM 1981-1 LTD PTSP

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                   133,098
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             34,149
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         167,247
<PP&E>                                41,106,216
<DEPRECIATION>                        41,073,341
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           200,122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     20,214
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                               123,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             200,122
<SALES>                                   89,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          92,634
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             43,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           49,496
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       49,496
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                              49,496
<EPS-BASIC>                                 7.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 110

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 110 appear at 70 FR 56090, Sept. 23, 2005.

#### § 110.10 Administering the hazardous materials emergency preparedness grants.

This part applies to States, Territories, and Indian tribes.

[84 FR 3999, Feb. 14, 2019]
**COURT OF APPEALS**

**TENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS**

****

October 15, 2014

No. 10-15-00284-CV

CHARLES H. SMITH, M.D. AND CARDIOVASCULAR 

SURGERY OF BRAZOS VALLEY

v.

JAMES MEADOWS AND CYNTHIA MEADOWS

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-002596-CV-361

**JUDGMENT**

	Charles H. Smith, M.D. and Cardiovascular Surgery of Brazos Valley’s motion to dismiss the appeal was considered by the Court.  The Court grants the motion.  It is the judgment of this Court that the appeal is dismissed.  

	There being no agreement of the parties as to costs, it is further ordered that costs of this appeal are taxed against Charles H. Smith, M.D. and Cardiovascular Surgery of Brazos Valley, jointly and severally.

A copy of this judgment will be certified by the Clerk of this Court and delivered to the trial court clerk for enforcement.

							PER CURIAM

****SHARRI ROESSLER, CLERK			

			By: ___________________________

				Nita Whitener, Deputy Clerk

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.jpeg
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








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the
      undersigned officer of Atrion Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to
      such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
      the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.








Dated:
                May 9, 2007
            /s/
                Emile A. BattatEmile
                A. BattatChief
                Executive Officer








The
      foregoing certification is made
      solely for purpose of  18 U.S.C. § 1350 and not for any other
      purpose.
#### The Rochester Hydraulic Motor Company, *Appellant, v.*George Ellwanger and others, *Respondents.*

Order of Special Term reversed, report set aside, and a new hearing ordered before another referee, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Opinion by

Barker, J.
§ 92.10-90 Vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952. ( a ) Existing arrangements previously approved will be considered satisfactory so long as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and alterations may be made to the same standards as the original design: *Provided,* That in no case will a greater departure from the standards of §§ 92.10-5 through 92.10-45 be permitted than presently exists. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as exempting any vessel from having 2 means of escape from all main compartments which are accessible to the passengers, if carried, or where the crew are normally quartered or employed.
§ 97.37-50 Ventilation alarm failure. ( a ) The alarm required by § 92.15-10(d)(4) of this subchapter, which indicates the loss of required ventilation in spaces specially suitable for vehicles, shall be marked with a conspicuous sign in at least 1 ⁄ 4-inch letters “VENTILATION FAILURE IN VEHICULAR SPACE.”
( b ) [Reserved]
[CGFR 66-33, 31 FR 15286, Dec. 6, 1966]
§ 1510.9 Collection of security service fees. ( a ) The following direct air carriers and foreign air carriers must collect security service fees from passengers on— ( 1 ) A scheduled passenger or public charter passenger operation with an aircraft having passenger seating configuration of more than 60 seats.
( 2 ) A scheduled passenger or public charter passenger operation with an aircraft having a passenger seating configuration of less than 61 seats when passengers are enplaned from or deplaned into a sterile area.
( b ) Direct air carriers and foreign air carriers must collect from each passenger, to the extent provided in § 1510.5, a security service fee on air transportation sold on or after 12:00 a.m. (Eastern Daylight Time) on July 21, 2014. The security service fee must be based on the air travel itinerary at the time the air transportation is sold. Any changes by the passenger to the itinerary are subject to additional collection or refund of the security service fee by the direct air carrier or foreign air carrier, as appropriate.
( c ) Whether or not the security service fee is collected as required by this part, the direct air carrier or foreign air carrier selling the air transportation is solely liable to TSA for the fee and must remit the fee as required in § 1510.13.
( d ) Direct air carriers and foreign air carriers may not collect security service fees not imposed by this part.
[66 FR 67701, Dec. 31, 2001, as amended at 79 FR 35473, June 20, 2014]
§ 1021.2 Enforcement claims and debtors. ( a ) Enforcement claims are all separate civil penalty or forfeiture claims not exceeding $20,000 which may arise under the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act or legislation supplementary thereto.
( b ) Debtor is any person or corporation subject to civil penalties or forfeitures for violation of the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act or legislation supplementary thereto.
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending May 15, 2010

----

Enforcement            Advantage Bancorp, Inc., Loveland, Colorado -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.            -Announced, May 10, 2010                        Cherokee Banking Company, Canton, Georgia -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.            -Announced, May 13, 2010                        Farmers Bancorporation, Inc., Buhl, Idaho -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.            -Announced, May 10, 2010                        HNB Corporation, Arkansas City, Kansas -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.            -Announced, May 11, 2010                        Integra Bank Corporation, Evansville, Indiana -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.            -Announced, May 13, 2010                        NCB Financial, Las Vegas, Nevada -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.            -Announced, May 11, 2010                        North Valley Bank, Zanesville, Ohio -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and the Ohio Division of Financial Institutions.            -Announced, May 12, 2010                        Trivoli Bancorp, Inc., Trivoli, Illinois -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.            -Announced, May 13, 2010            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
#### Ralph E. Prime et al., Respondents, *v.*The City of Yonkers, Appellant.

*Prime*v. *City of Yonkers,*131 App. Div. 110, affirmed.

(Argued June 9, 1910;

decided September 27, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 9, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to recover damages to real property alleged to have been caused by defendant’s interference with the flow of a stream.

*Thomas F.*Curran, *Corporation Counsel (John F. Brennan*of counsel), for appellant.

*Henry Bacon*and *Ralph Earl*Prime, Jb\, for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Jenks, J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Cray, Haight; Vann Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000702403
<NAME>                             DYCO OIL & GAS PROGRAM 1981-2 LIMITED PTRSHP
                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                142,351
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          71,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      213,907
<PP&E>                             39,747,751
<DEPRECIATION>                     39,642,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        358,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  40,477
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                            191,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          358,288
<SALES>                                75,712
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       77,150
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          61,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        15,239
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    15,239
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           15,239
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            2.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        
 

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         82,891
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               634,575
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 906,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          79,947
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   906,786
<SALES>                                        260,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               280,928
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                147,761
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   147,761
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  5.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 9
Federal Reserve Bank of: Minneapolis

## Filings received during the week ending June 4, 2011

|Filer                        | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                | End of Comment Period                                 
|---------------------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------
|FIRST WESTERN BANK AND TRUST | * 18C* Branch  | First Western Bank & Trust, Minot, North Dakota,  to merge with First Western Bank & Trust, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and incident thereto proposes to establish a branch at 100 Prairie Center Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                   | Not available 
|Federal Register:            | Not applicable
|GOLDEN OAK BANCSHARES, INC.  | * 3A1          | Golden Oak Bancshares, Inc., Sparta, Wisconsin, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 81.5 percent of Park Bank, Holmen, Wisconsin.                                                                                    | Newspaper:06/26/2011Federal Register:07/01/2011       
|Newspaper:                   | 06/26/2011    
|Federal Register:            | 07/01/2011    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                       9,192,254
<SECURITIES>                                18,579,754
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,710,162
<ALLOWANCES>                                 6,623,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,104,332
<PP&E>                                       3,940,829
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,770,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,735,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,178,703
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,580
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,931,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,735,562
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,510,179
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,626,858
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,010,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             5,128,847
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,465,069)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,785,403)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,881,927
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,667,330)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 664,011
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,003,319)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.67)


</TABLE>
§ 1018.5 Monetary limitation on Board authority. The Board's authority to compromise a claim or to terminate or suspend collection action on a claim covered by these procedures is limited by 31 U.S.C. 3711(a) to claims that: ( a ) Have not been referred to another Federal agency, including the GAO, for further collection action; and
( b ) Do not exceed $100,000, exclusive of interest, penalties, and administrative costs (the monetary limitation).
Page 1 of 1 

New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP Revision 

Responses to Federal Land Managers’ Comments 

On December 20, 2010, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) 

received written comments from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) 

regarding the November 19, 2010, draft final revision of New Hampshire’s Regional Haze SIP. 

These comments were provide in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and were 

in response to the revised Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for PSNH 

Merrimack Station Unit MK2. The following is NHDES’s response to NPS’s comments. 

Comments are reproduced in italics and the response appears in regular font.

NPS Comments: We disagree with the methods used by NHDES to demonstrate the visibility 

response to BART controls at PSNH Merrimack Station. In the CALPUFF model, natural 

background visibility conditions are to be used to evaluate the visibility impacts from the BART 

source at Class I receptors. Natural background visibility conditions are to be used with 

current emissions from the source and again when comparing visibility benefits of alternative 

emissions control options. The Federal Land Managers (FLMs) have recommended to the 

northeastern states that since only one year of meteorological data is being modeled, the 20% 

best natural background visibility conditions should be used in the analysis. The maximum 

impact value at the Class I area receptors should be used to determine the visibility impact of 

the source before control and assuming control installation. If three years of meteorological 

data are processed with observational data, the FLMs have recommended that the annual 

average of the natural background visibility conditions can be used in the comparison with the 

8th highest impact value in each year to determine the source's visibility impact. NHDES has 

incorrectly used the 20% worst days from current visibility conditions to evaluate the benefits 

of controls at Merrimack Station. Instead, the 20% best natural background visibility 

condition and the maximum visibility impact on any day should be used to evaluate the benefits 

of controls. NHDES' approach is not appropriate and does not meet the BART modeling 

guidance. Since the maximum impact of the source may actually be on a good visibility day, 

and since the objective is to compare the source impact to clean natural background visibility 

conditions, the analysis of the visibility impact of controls at Merrimack Station is not 

acceptable and needs to be redone. 

 NHDES Response: In the current revision of the SIP, NHDES has addressed the 

technical issues raised by NPS, which arose from a misinterpretation of the 

guidance by NHDES. Please refer to “New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP 

Revision, Responses to EPA’s Comments.” In particular, please see the CALPUFF 

Modeling Assessment, included as an attachment to that response document.
# C_2014039EN.01000201.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2013 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sachsa Verpackung GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-40/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - Industrial plastic bags sector - Whether the infringement by a subsidiary may be attributed to the parent company - Excessive length of the proceedings before the General Court - Principle of effective legal protection)

2014/C 39/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sachsa Verpackung GmbH (represented by: F. Puel and L. François-Martin, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-79/06 Sachsa Verpackung v Commission, by which that court dismissed the application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) (Case COMP/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel in the industrial plastic bags sector and an application to vary that decision.

Sachsa Verpackung

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs of this appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

1

---