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

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<CIK> 0000022099
<NAME> THE COLUMBIA GAS SYSTEM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER> 1
   <NAME> CGS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,581,200
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    729,800
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,275,900
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        48,100
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 422,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,057,000
<COMMON>                                       506,200
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      595,800
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             69,800
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,114,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    399,900
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         2,004,500
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      500
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      399,900
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      2,900
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               2,538,600
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,057,000
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    2,635,200
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         (210,700)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,245,000
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,245,000
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        390,200
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            (44,800)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 345,400
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       988,400
<NET-INCOME>                                 (360,700)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                (360,700)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       (807,400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (7.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.15)
        

</TABLE>
<Page>

EXHIBIT 21

The Company's only active subsidiaries are each either wholly owned or majority
owned and are included in the consolidated financial statements of the Company.
Their jurisdictions of incorporation are as follows:

<Table>
<Caption>

Name of Subsidiary                                       Jurisdiction of Incorporation
<S>                                                      <C>
Computer Horizons E-Solutions (Europe) Limited           England and Wales
Computer Horizons (Canada) Corp. / Corporation
     Computer Horizons Canada                            Toronto, Canada
Horizons Technologies, Inc.                              Delaware
Strategic Outsourcing Services, Inc.                     Delaware
CHC/Prince Co., Inc.                                     New Jersey
G. Triad Development Corp.                               New Jersey
Integrated Computer Management, Inc.                     New Jersey
CHIMES, Inc.                                             Delaware
eB Networks, Inc.                                        Delaware
CG Computer Services Corp.                               California
Horizon Enterprises, Inc.                                Delaware
Spargo Holdings, Inc.                                    Delaware
Spargo Holdings II, Inc.                                 Delaware
Chimes (UK) Limited                                      England and Wales
Chimes B.V                                               Netherlands
Chimes Servicing Corp.                                   Delaware
CHC Healthcare Solutions, LLC                            Delaware
</Table>
#### In the Matter of the sale of the real estate of John P. Dodge, deceased.

Reargument ordered.
#### § 92.3 Scope.

The provisions of this part are applicable to the indebtedness of a current or former employee of DOT incurred under any program administered by DOT. The provisions of this part do not apply to the collection of indebtedness by authority other than 5 U.S.C. 5514.
# USCENTCOM directs investigation into Afghan-Pakistan border incident

/ Published Nov. 28, 2011

By USCENTCOM Public Affairs

MacDill AFB, Fla. (November 28, 2011) — The commander of U.S. Central  Command, Gen. James N. Mattis, has directed an investigation into the  incident near the Salala Checkpoint, Khas Kunar Province, Afghanistan,  in the vicinity of the Pakistan border on Nov. 25, which inflicted  casualties on Pakistan military personnel.

General Mattis has appointed Brig. Gen. Stephen Clark from Headquarters Air Force Special Operations Command at Hurlburt Field, Fla., as the Investigating Officer. The inquiry will be CENTCOM-led with the support, cooperation and involvement of a NATO element on the investigation team.

Additionally, the investigation team has been directed to include input and participation from the International Security Assistance Force. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Government of Pakistan will be invited to participate. It is USCENTCOM’s intent to include these government representatives to the maximum extent possible to determine what happened and preclude it from happening again.

The investigation team will focus their efforts on the facts of the incident and any matters that facilitate a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the deaths and injuries of the Pakistan forces.

General Mattis has directed the investigating officer to provide an initial report by December 23, 2011.

The appointment letter for the U.S. investigating officer is provided here.

POC:  USCENTCOM Public Affairs

CCCIDuty@centcom.mil

813-529-0218
# June 30: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL Terrorists in Syria and Iraq

/ Published June 30, 2015

June 30, 2015

Release # 20150630

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**SOUTHWEST ASIA –**Coalition military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq June 29. In Syria, coalition military forces conducted nine airstrikes using attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft. Separately in Iraq, coalition military forces conducted nine airstrikes approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense using attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists.

"Anti-Daesh fighters in northern Syria have proven to be a dependable and effective force," said Col. Wayne Marotto, CJTF-OIR chief of public affairs. “The coalition will continue to support them in a myriad of ways, including airstrikes.”

The following is a summary of the strikes conducted since the last press release:

**Syria**

****-- Near Al Hasakah, seven airstrikes struck five ISIL tactical units, destroying four ISIL vehicles, an ISIL armored personnel carrier and an ISIL tank.

-- Near Ar Raqqah, one airstrike struck an ISIL excavator.

-- Near Dayr Az Zawr, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL vehicle

**Iraq**

****-- Near Baghdadi, three airstrikes struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage, destroying two ISIL excavators.

-- Near Fallujah, one airstrike destroyed an ISIL tunnel system.

-- Near Haditha, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL vehicles.

-- Near Mosul, two airstrikes struck an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL mortar firing position, destroying an ISIL building.

-- Near Waleed, one airstrike destroyed three ISIL armored personnel carriers.

Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned to base safely.

The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations. Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes in Iraq include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States. Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes in Syria include Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and the U.S.
From: Andrew Kantor [mailto:AKantor@kantorlaw.net] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:38 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB39

To Whom It May Concern, 

My name is Andrew Kantor. I am an attorney working in southern California who specializes in 

representing plaintiffs who have been wrongfully denied employee benefits. A majority of my 

current practice involves ERISA disability denials. 

As I’m sure you are aware, ERISA remedy pre-emption is extraordinarily harmful to claimants. 

Any insurance attorney can tell you that ERISA-governed insurers and administrators will freely 

and consistently deny rightful claims for benefits, because the incentive NOT to do so (in the 

form of extra-contractual damages) is stripped by ERISA. As such, it ends up being good 

business for ERISA insurers to deny righteous claims. If the claimant fights, the most the insurer 

risks is paying the benefits due anyway, and maybe a slap on the wrist in the form of attorneys’ 

fees. If the claimant does not fight the denial, the insurer has effectively robbed its claimants of 

benefits without repercussion- and unfortunately, most claimants do not fight. As such, the deck 

is extraordinarily stacked against ERISA claimants, with no congressional legislation to repair 

this broken system anywhere in sight. And this is why the proposed regulations are so important, 

as it provides a more even playing field for ERISA claimants who desperately need it.

Further, these regulations help claimants and plan administrators understand their rights and 

obligations. They were proposed in the usual regulatory sense and there was sufficient time for 

all interested parties to weigh in during the approval process. Implementation of these 

regulations should not be delayed and will cause more bureaucratic confusion among plan 

administrators and claimants regarding their duties, rights and responsibilities. The new 

Regulations provide clarity and will avoid unnecessary litigation over issues that are not 

appropriately addressed in the 2002 Regulations. 

Finally, I do not believe that premiums will rise as a result of these obligations. Rather, because 

the regulations put in place common sense rules that facilitate a productive, full, and fair 

“administrative” process during the claim submission and appeal period, the new regulations will 

reduce litigation and reduce the costs of the cases that do end up being litigated. Considering 

“ERISA imposes higher-than-marketplace quality standards” on claims administrators, the 

regulations set to go into effect January 1, 2018 simply bring more clarity to the standards that 

need to be met to fulfill an already existing responsibility. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 

554 U.S. 105, 115 (2008). If this causes costs or litigation to rise (which it should not), it is 

simply evidence that, prior to the new regulations, claims administrators were not abiding by the 

law already in place.

Sincerely, Andrew Kantor

Andrew M. Kantor, Esq.

Kantor & Kantor, LLP
19839 Nordhoff St.

Northridge, CA 91324

AKantor@kantorlaw.net

(818) 886-2525
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.                  

###### Social Security Administration

          - [Docket No. SSA-2023-0033]

# AGENCY:

Social Security Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board Membership.

*Authority:*                     Title 5, U.S. Code, 4314 (c)(4), requires that the appointment of Performance Review Board members be published in the                     **Federal Register**                     before service on said Board begins.                

The following persons will serve on the Performance Review Board which oversees the evaluation of performance appraisals of Senior Executive Service members of the Social Security Administration:

Florence Felix-Lawson, Chair

Antoinette Amrhein

Jeffrey Buckner

Djimy Chapron

Vikash Chhagan

Daniel Callahan *

Doris Diaz

Christopher Harris *

Jose (Joe) Lopez

Kristen Medley-Proctor

Jatin (Jim) Parikh

Claudia Postell*

Dawn Wiggins

* New Member

Darlynda K. Bogle,

Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources.

[FR Doc. 2023-18613 Filed 8-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 546 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 25, 2002.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4691) to prohibit certain abortion-related 
discrimination in governmental activities. The bill shall be considered as read 
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on 
the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1445.html[7/23/2015 11:09:53 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvo-w05i

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1445

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I can plan for my own retirement with my own money.
EXHIBIT 10.25.1


                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                         TELE DIGITAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
                             1996 OMNIBUS STOCK PLAN

         The Tele Digital Development, Inc. 1996 Omnibus Stock Option Plan (the
"Plan") was adopted by the Board of Directors of Tele Digital Development, Inc.
(the "Company") and approved by the shareholders of the Company in 1996. This
Amendment was adopted by the Board of Directors on May 13, 2002 in order to
amend the Plan with respect to the number of shares of capital stock which may
be granted under the Plan. The Shareholders approved this Amendment on June 10,
2002.

         A. AMENDMENT. The first sentence of Section 4 of the Plan titled "Stock
Subject to the Plan" is hereby amended to read as follows:

         "Subject to adjustment as provided in this Plan, the total number of
         shares of common stock of the Company ("Common Stock") to be issued
         shall not exceed 10,000,000 shares."

         B. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Amendment shall be effective as of May 13,
2002.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.3 MB)
 
 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit cjtf-oir isis 24th Meu Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve Artillery Strikes Operation Inherent Resolve Syria usmc MARINES
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7036

DOMINIC SABBIA,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 08-3638.

ON MOTION

Before GAJARSA, FRIEDMAN, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves for an extension of time and moves to

waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and dismiss this appeal as premature.

Dominic Sabbia opposes both motions.

On November 21, 2008, Sabbia filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' November 12, 2008 order. The

docket sheet of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims indicates that the November

12 order is a notice of docketing and that proceedings are ongoing in the Court of

Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Sabbia contends that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has made a

constructive final decision and requests that the court award benefits to him, his mother,
and his children immediately. However, Sabbia does not explain how the Court of

Appeals for Veterans Claims made a "constructive final decision." The court notes that

Sabbia filed his notice of appeal seeking review by this court only fifteen days after his

notice of appeal seeking review by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim was filed.

This court's jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing final decisions of the

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. In this case, the Court of

Appeals for Veterans Claims has not issued a final decision. Thus, the appeal is

dismissed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Secretary's motions are granted. The appeal is dismissed.

Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

MAY - 5 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

cc:	Dominic Sabbia

Jessica R. Toplin, Esq.

s17

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

64U

Till F

MAY -5 2009

an,

CliRK

ISSUED AS A MANDATE:

MAY - 5 2009

2009-7036	 2
EXHIBIT 31.1



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Thomas W. Lanni, President and Chief Executive Officer of Comarco, Inc., certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Comarco, 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;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









|Date: May 31, 2013 | /s/ THOMAS W. LANNI                   | 
|------------------ | ------------------------------------- | 
|                   | Thomas W. Lanni                       | 
|                   | President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|                   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |
§ 98.12 Administrative sanctions. ( a ) The Secretary, in decisions under § 98.10 of this part, and the examiner, in decisions under § 98.8 and § 98.9 of this part, may impose an administrative sanction against a former employee who, after a final administrative decision under this part, is found to be in violation of 18 U.S.C. 207.
( b ) The administrative sanctions that may be imposed under subsection (a) of this section are: ( 1 ) Prohibiting the former employee from making, on behalf of any other person except the United States, any formal or informal appearance before, or, with the intent to influence, any oral or written communication to, the Department of any of its administrations on any matter of business for a period not to exceed five years; or
( 2 ) Taking other appropriate disciplinary action, such as a reprimand or suspension from participation in a particular matter or matters before the Department.