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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,980
<SECURITIES>                                    35,688
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,992
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,092
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,568
<PP&E>                                           2,810
<DEPRECIATION>                                     489
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,051
<BONDS>                                         43,339
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,890
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,522
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,889
<SALES>                                         16,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,500
<CGS>                                            7,125
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   663
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,603
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,074
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,529
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,529
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

# Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of WidePoint
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (
the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/  STEVE L. KOMAR                      
|Steve L. Komar
Chief Executive Officer   
|/s/  JAMES T. MCCUBBIN                   
|James T. McCubbin
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  November 14, 2003
----

Call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

(2004/C 158/07)

----

(1)OJ L 232, 29.8.2002, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 294, 29.10.2002, p. 1.

(3)  Commission Decision C(2002)4789, as modified by C(2003)577, C(2003)955, C(2003)1952, C(2003)3543, C(2003)3555, C(2003)4609, C(2003)5183, C(2004)433, and C(2004)2002, all decisions unpublished.

(4)OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 23.

(5)OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(6)OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1.

(7)  C(2003)883 of 27/3/2003, as last modified by C(2004)1855 of 18.5.2004.

(8)  The EPSS is a tool to assist proposers to develop and submit their proposals electronically.

(9)  Users of courier services that ask for the recipient's telephone number should give the following number: (32-2) 2993061 (Mr Daniel Descoutures).

----

ANNEX

1.   Specific programme: Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area.

2.   Thematic priority/Domain: All thematic priority areas.

3.   Call title: Specific Support Actions (SSA) for targeted countries.

4.   Call identifier: FP6-2004 –TC-SSA-General.

5.   Date of publication: 15 June 2004.

6.   Closure dates: 14 October 2004 at 17.00 (Brussels local time).

7.   Total indicative budget: EUR 2 900 000.

8.   Area & instruments: 

9.   Minimum number of participants: 

10.   Restriction to participation: none.

11.   Consortium agreement: Participants in RTD actions resulting from this call are not required to conclude a consortium agreement.

12.   Evaluation procedure: 

13.   Evaluation criteria: see Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument.

14.   Indicative evaluation and selection delays: 

----

(1)  as specified in the work programme, selected participants from third countries which have an S&T cooperation agreement with the EC or in process of negotiating such an agreement may receive a Community financial contribution.

----
##### 



Executive Incentive Plan (2006)
 I. Purpose
  
    
    Linking Company business objectives with key executives compensation;
    
    Rewarding teamwork and individual performance for achieving annual business results;
    
    Providing motivation to key executives to excel by offering competitive
incentive and total cash compensation;
    
    Promoting human resources goals to attract, hire and retain quality talent; and,
    
    Balancing short and long-term considerations through compensation for
achievement of twelve-month goals that are consistent with long-term objectives.
 II. Effective Date
  III. Plan Year
  IV. Plan Administration
   V. Eligibility




---



##### 



v
    
    report directly to a Division President and/or be within two reporting levels of the
Chief Executive Officer; or must be an approved exception by the Chief Executive
Officer; and,v
    
    be an active employee at the end of the Plan Year and at the time payments are made,
unless specified differently in other contractual agreements or as noted in Section IX.
  VI. Company Performance Objectives
 Threshold:
  Target:
  Maximum:
  Performance Measures and Weights:
   VII. Incentive Awards
 Limitations
   Award Level
  2




---



##### 



VIII. Individual Annual Incentive Awards
  Payment
  IX. Minimum Payments and Payments on Termination of Employment
  provided, however,
 provided, however,
  X. Miscellaneous
 Payment from General Assets
  No Right of Employment
  3




---



##### 



Non-Solicit; Non-Compete
  Non-Assignment/Death Benefits
  Amendment, Suspension, or Termination of the Plan
  XI. Definitions
  Base Salary
 Disability
 Retirement
 Termination for Cause
 4




---



##### 



I have read the 2006 Executive Incentive Plan for Artesyn Technologies, of which I have been chosen
as a participant, and I agree to all of the terms and conditions as stated in this Plan document.
  Print Name
    
    Signature
    
    Date
 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10QSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         352,752
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,993
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,080
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               503,250
<PP&E>                                       8,355,141
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,195,252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,814,523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,842,832
<BONDS>                                      6,464,909
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,032
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,965,557)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,814,523
<SALES>                                        325,069
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               341,762
<CGS>                                          274,120
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  537,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,162
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             208,204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (411,436)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (411,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (411,436)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)


</TABLE>
[08/1 0/201 OJ 

Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 


Department ofHealth and Human Services 


• ~ttention: OCII0-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 


Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 


Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health 

Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act (pPACA). 

_-..-.'r ____ .;". _ .-' 

-..: -. 

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number ofindividuals covered by 

PPACA, especially as ofJanuary 1, 2014 when most ofthe reform components (Insurance 

Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into play. 

The average consumer has a broad definition of "benefits." Consumers view their health plan 

beyond the covered benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan.. 

It is my opinion that the Rule may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its 

application. For example, if an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in.one 

area (i.e. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits, 

does that mean a loss of grandfather status? Clarity will be critical both for the employer and the 

; employee. 

Even by the most optimistic estimates, a substantial portion ofthe employee population will 

remain outside the PPACA as ofJanuary 2014 based on the current rules. While I understand the 

difficulty involved in making change, creating another large sub-population of excluded 

individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate the potential impact ofthe 

legislation. 

The Rule needs to be clear, reasonable, and with no ambiguities involved in determining whether 

a group health plan is "in or out." The'decisions·tlfe federargovernmertt maKes today will ., - ~--- ­

determine the outcomes for tomorrow. We may need to make some difficult decisions to create 

a sustainable health care system that will support a growing economy in the future. That means 

getting as many citizens across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and 

delivering on its promises to retain then: support. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regulation. 

Dr; Nancy Inskeep Irven 

.~ ", 

. 

.. 

" 

' 

"

. "
USCENTCOM senior enlisted leader retires following 33-year career
 By By Sgt. Fredrick Coleman, U.S. Central Command
  **MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -** Command Sgt. Maj. Frank Grippe, U.S. Central Command’s senior enlisted leader, closed the final chapter of his 33-year career during a retirement ceremony here June 27. “'Hooah' is all I can say about my career. I’ve enjoyed the selfless service to my country and to the Army,” said Grippe, a Syracuse N.Y. native. “I just love my job.” During his comments, USCENTCOM Commander Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III highlighted some of the units Grippe has served as the senior enlisted Soldier, including Multi-National Corps-Iraq, Multi-National Division-North in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Combined Joint Task Force Warrior in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, and 101st Airborne Division. “I think he’s the only command sergeant major to serve on every command level from battalion to combatant command and lead troops to combat,” said Gen. Austin, who presided over the ceremony. “The term 'a Soldier’s Soldier' is often overused, but it’s appropriate for this occasion” Grippe’s personal decorations include a Purple Heart, four Bronze Stars medals for Valor, Defense Meritorious Service Medal and two Legions of Merritt.  He has also earned a Ranger badge, Pathfinder School Badge, Combat Action Badge, and Master Parachutist Badge with bronze star. He has also earned British, Canadian, United Arab Emirates, Royal Jordanian, Korean and Royal Thailand Army Parachutist badges. Command Sgt. Maj. Christopher K. Greca will replace Grippe as USCENTCOM’s senior enlisted leader.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11


Statement re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

        Primary earnings per share is computed by dividing net earnings by the
weighted average number of shares of common stock and common stock equivalents
outstanding during the period. Stock options are considered to be common stock
equivalents and are included in the primary earnings per share calculation for
that period unless the effect is determined to be antidilutive. Net earnings
for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994 were $4,208,000,
$1,911,000 and $332,000, respectively. The weighted average numbers of shares
used for the primary earnings per share calculations were 2,724,000, 2,483,000
and 1,262,000 in 1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively.

        In the calculation of fully diluted earnings per share, net earnings is
adjusted by adding back the interest expense on the Debentures and deducting
the amount of unamortized debt issuance costs as of the beginning of each
period that the Debentures are dilutive. The adjusted net earnings is then
divided by the weighted average number of shares of common stock, common stock
equivalents and other potentially dilutive securities. The Debentures are
considered to be other potentially dilutive securities and are included in the
earnings per share calculations unless the effect is determined to be
antidilutive. The adjusted net earnings used for the fully diluted earnings per
share calculations were $4,543,000, $2,175,000 and $332,000, respectively, for
the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994. The weighted average numbers
of shares used for the fully diluted earnings per share calculations were
3,206,000, 3,019,000 and 1,269,000 in 1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively.
From: jmurray640@gmail.com [mailto:jmurray640@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:51 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN No.: 1210-AB39 

Dear Mr. Hauser,

I am an attorney working in southern Florida and I have been representing individuals in 

ERISA claims and litigation for more than 20 years. While ERISA was designed to be an 

equitable law, this is far from how it is implemented currently for those individuals whose 

benefits are subject this law.

I am requesting that the DOL not delay the implementation of the new claims regulations. 

DOL has already extensively evaluated commentary from claimants, insurance companies, plans 

and others during the rule making process. The Secretary of Labor should not delay the 

effective date of the Final ERISA claims regulations adopted on December 19, 2016 . ERISA 

plans, their advocates and insurance companies and their advocates are now seeking to undo the 

regulations after the fact without going through the rule making process. These parties had ample 

opportunity to voice their concerns and to provide data supporting their new allegations on cost 

and other purported challenges by the new regulations.

ERISA is a law that tends to lead to very inequitable results, particularly in litigation of 

long-term-disability claims and health insurance claims. To reiterate, The Secretary of Labor 

finalized rules after an extensive notice and comment period that resulted in 

significant input from various interested parties. This included attorneys representing 

participants, participants, ERISA plans, insurance companies and their advocates and ERISA 

plan organizations. The Secretary weighed these comments before crafting the final rules. Now, 

the ERISA plan organizations, insurance companies and those aligned with those groups are 

seeking to undo the regulations without following regulatory procedures. The amendments to the 

regulations that must take effect early next year to provide for some balance between sick and 

injured people and insurance companies and plans. The regulations are enacted, the regulations 

must be implemented and followed, and should be followed without further delay.

Sincerely

John P. Murray

Disability Attorney

The Murray Law Firm, P.A.

2655 Lejeune Road Ste 700

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Tel: (305) 779-4818

Fax: (305) 779-4819

Email: john@johnpmurray.com

www.johnpmurray.com

Michael McKuin, Esq.
1 From:
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 1:14 PM

To: RedHill Subject: Protect Oahu Drinking Water from Jet Fuel NOW

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

I am writing to express my extreme concern about jet fuel leaking from Navy storage tanks on Red Hill into one of Oahu's main aquifers. It is ESSENTI AL that the leaked fuel is completely cleaned up IMMEDIATELY. The reported 25 years given to the Navy to take care of this problem created by the Navy is too long to wait. This is entirely UNACCEPT ABLE. If the leaks cannot be immediately fixed, they must be emptied immediately and replaced. I also strongly urge t hat the public comment period on the negotiated agreement between the Navy, EPA, and Hawaii DOH be extended to allow the public to become aware, to understand, and to weigh-in on this critical issue for Oahu's future and sustainability. I expect that you will keep me informed as this process proceeds.

Thank you,
Noble and EPA Meeting 

November 3, 2015 

2 pm to 4 pm 

1. Introductions 

2. Meeting Goals and Outcomes 

3. Key Questions and Concerns 

4. Key Issues/Questions 

• Effective Date 

• Technologicallnnovation 

• Recordkeeping & Reporting 

• LDAR 

• Pneumatic pumps. 

• Storage Tanks 

• Modification Standard 

• "Fugitive Emissions Component 

• Liquids Unloading 

• 3rd Party Verification vs Self Certification 

• CTGS 

• Voluntary Program Proposal 

5. Other discussion items 

• Comment deadlines 

• Related rules 

6. Adjourn 
------ kM~ \\(1.VI1bo'cL 

l;r;L- fu YY11)bV1 

Jt\/v\ ~~ 

~~- LCJv'k.~ 

~/U Aw---r;;L> lit.. 

)blc F:\ 

(h;Li v~ 

GltA~/PtJti ?(s:~ 

A tu~ (J ltDS<~ 

By-\.)~ ~ oo'(-e 

~ 

~mOA.hDI\ 

~~ 

erA ..t,._~ 

))~1 ~ -z t:. "'-lVI'--!:) I 

rVvh le ~rQ r.c.. \ 

CPftsrAt=' ?/1 

p\.!Of'le,: ~o6,d ~~~-f91\ 

Mer~ Deh'f~rtd.o -r;fi'\ 

'S ui<t- \ili\ te-en.- -~ P-1\ 

VA.., ~\\'/\ -~A\ 

t::n~~~ ~Mhk-_s -EcR
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

DANIEL ADEM VAN DAALEN, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0117 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2002-019041 

The Honorable Timothy J. Ryan, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Daniel Strange

Counsel for Respondent 

Daniel Adem Van Daalen, Tucson

Petitioner

FILED 8-31-2021
STATE v. VAN DAALEN

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge 

Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner Daniel Adem Van Daalen seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This 

is petitioner’s fourth successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is 

petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 

537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.