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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTERLY  PERIOD  ENDED  JUNE 29,  1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000876400
<NAME>                          STIMSONITE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-29-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.000
<CASH>                                            195
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  24,058
<ALLOWANCES>                                      896
<INVENTORY>                                    14,430
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               42,451
<PP&E>                                         34,819
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,182
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 78,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          21,541
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           90
<OTHER-SE>                                     24,378
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   78,315
<SALES>                                        38,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               38,196
<CGS>                                          25,367
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                9,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,195
<INCOME-TAX>                                      993
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,202
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,202
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        


</TABLE>
Transport Transports

Canada Canada

 TP 7245E

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your name. ADs are issued pursuant to Canadian 

Aviation Regulation (CAR) 521 Division X. Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H, the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian 

registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD may invalidate the flight authorization of the aircraft. Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above-referenced Standard.

This AD has been issued by the Continuing Airworthiness Division (AARDG), National Aircraft Certification Branch, Transport Canada, Ottawa, telephone 613 952-4357.

1/1 No.

CF-2014-13

Issue Date

17 April 2014

Number: CF-2014-13

Subject: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator (HSTA) – Incorporation of New Certification 

Maintenance Requirement (CMR) Task

Effective: 1 May 2014

Applicability: Bombardier Inc. model CL-600-2B19 aeroplanes equipped with HSTA 

part number (P/N) 601R92305-7 (vendor P/N 8396-5).

Compliance: As indicated below, unless already accomplished.

Background: A revision has been made to Part 2 of the Canadair Regional Jet Maintenance 

Requirements Manual (MRM), Appendix A – Certification Maintenance Requirements 

which introduces a new task for the HSTA. Failure to comply with the CMR task could 

lead to an unsafe condition.

This AD is issued to ensure that premature wear and cracking of the affected components

are detected and corrected.

Corrective 

Actions:

Within 30 days from the effective date of this AD, amend the Transport Canada approved 

maintenance schedule by incorporating the CMR task C27-40-103-05, as introduced by 

Temporary Revisions (TR) 2A-58, dated 31 January 2014.

The above referenced task contains phase-in schedules, as required, for aeroplanes with 

HSTA that may have already exceeded the initial task interval.

Compliance in accordance with superseding TR or later revisions of the above mentioned 

task in Airworthiness Limitations Section of the CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements 

Manual, approved by Transport Canada, also satisfies the requirements of this AD.

Authorization: For the Minister of Transport,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

Derek Ferguson

Chief, Continuing Airworthiness

Contact: Gordanko Jeremic, Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 613-952-4357, facsimile 

613-996-9178 or e-mail AD-CN@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada Centre.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister 

in writing of any change of his or her name or address. 

To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communications Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8, or 1-800-305-2059, or www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communications/centre/ address.asp

24-0022 (01-2005)
Yeager v. Adkins 250 Va. 1 (1995)

________________________________________________________________ VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme court Building in the City of Richmond, on Friday, the 9th day of June, 1995.

Leonard Jewell Yeager, Appellant, against Record No. 941437 Circuit Court No. L1373 Stephen Andrew Adkins, Appellee.

Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of Madison County on the 20th day of May, 1994.

Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, the Court is of opinion that there is no error in the judgment appealed from. Appellant, Leonard Jewell Yeager, filed this action against appellee, Stephen Andrew Adkins, seeking to recover damages for personal injuries Yeager sustained in an automobile accident. Adkins, the driver of the only car involved in the accident, was arrested and charged with reckless driving. Code § 46.2-852. Adkins signed a summons stating in relevant part: "I promise to appear in accordance with this Summons. . . . SIGNING THIS NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ADMISSION OF GUILT." He did not post a cash bond as security for his appearance. Adkins failed to appear in general district court, was convicted of reckless driving, and subsequently paid a fine and court costs. Yeager unsuccessfully sought to present evidence of this conviction in the trial of his tort action against Adkins.Yeager, relying upon Code § 8.01-418, argues that Adkins' failure to appear in the general district court proceedings and his subsequent payment of a fine constituted a forfeiture and, thus, evidence of the judgment of the general district court is admissible. Code § 8.01-418 states: Whenever, in any civil action, it is contended that any party thereto pled guilty or nolo contendere or suffered a forfeiture in a prosecution for a criminal offense or traffic infraction which arose out of the same occurrence upon which the civil action is based, evidence of said plea or forfeiture as shown by the records of the criminal court shall be admissible. Where the records of the court in which such prosecution was had are silent or ambiguous as to whether or not such plea was made or forfeiture occurred the court hearing the civil case shall admit such evidence on the question of such plea or forfeiture as may be relevant, and the question of whether such plea was made or forfeiture suffered shall be a question for the court to determine.

We hold that the trial court did not err by refusing to admit evidence of the judgment of the general district court. The mere failure to appear in general district court to contest a traffic offense and the subsequent payment of a fine and costs do not constitute a forfeiture within the meaning of Code § 8.01-

418. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The appellee shall recover thirty dollars damages from the appellant. A copy of this order shall be certified to the circuit court. This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports. A Copy,

Teste:

David B. Beach, Clerk
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6647** 

LEVI SPRINGER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. TRACY RAY , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virgin ia , at Alexandria
. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:10

— cv - 00415

- LO

- TRJ )

Submitted : September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Levi Springer, Appe llant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Levi Springer seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order d ismissin g his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely filed . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district cou rt’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demons trate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Springer has no t made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument wo uld not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSE D
# L_2009002EN.01S00301.xml

| 6.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 2/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 2/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
Request for Information Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management (FAA-2014-0817) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Nielsen: 

This letter is to inform you that we have received and reviewed your request for an amendment to Exemption No. 

11253, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0817. Upon initial review, it was determined that more information was 

needed in order to move forward with your amendment. This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your full amendment.

z Please clarify the aircraft below. The list represents an initial assessment of the aircraft that the FAA is unable to 

move forward with. 

Please make any needed changes to the list, and submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information 

(and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by November 11, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-1538.

Sincerely,

/S/

Joshua Parker

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

Airspace Rules Division

FAA Office of Rulemaking

Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 9:08 AM 

To: Simon.Nielsen@drone-fleet.com

UAS Model Comments

4. 3D Robotics Bumblebee-S Manufactured by Shenzen, not 3D Robotics

6. 3D Robotics RTF X8 Duplicate

33. Aeryon SkyRanger Duplicate

53. Arch Aerial October Not UAS. Arch Aerial Octo Copter is approved UAS.

66. DJI Flame Wheel F550S Duplicate

82. DJI Ronin Octo Not UAS

103. Foxtech Kraken 130 V2 Duplicate

125. LOCORC Not UAS

180. Tarot X8 Duplicate
Case No. 9,584.

#### MILLER v. MOORE.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 471.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1807.

Principal and Agent — Authority to Indorse— Evidence — Production *of*Written Authority.

In an action by the indorsee of a promissory note against the maker, the plaintiff need not produce written evidence of the authority of the indorser’s agent to indorse.

Debt on a promissory note, made by Moore to W. T. Alexander, or order, for value received, negotiable in the Bank of Alexandria^ indorsed, “Pay to Richard and Stephen Winchester, or order” — signed, “William T. Alexander, by his attorney in fact, John T. Well-ford” — and “Pay Mordecai Miller,” signed, “R. & S. Winchester.”

Mr. Swann, for defendant,

contended that the plaintiff must show a written authority from W. T. Alexander to John T. Wellford, to indorse and transfer the note.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

But

THE COURT

permitted parol (viva voce) testimony to be offered, to show that Wellford was an agent for Alexander, and that he had been accustomed to indorse the name of Alexander on notes, and that Alexander had sanctioned such indorsements.
Hummingbird

Springs Wilderness

Big Horn

Mountains

Wilderness

Harquahala

Mountains

Wilderness

Hells Canyon

Wilderness

Hassayampa

River Canyon

Wilderness

Castle Creek

Wilderness

Mohave County

Yavapai County

Yavapai

Marico

County

pa County

La Paz County

Maricopa County

White Tank

Mountains

Regional Park

Lake

Pleasant

Regional

Park

Prescott

Prescott

Valley

Cordes

Junction

Yarnell

BLACK

CANYON

CITY

NEW

RIVER

WICKENBURG

PEORIA

SURPRISE

BUCKEYE

GOODYEAR

PHOENIX

GLENDALE

Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix District Office

Phoenix, AZ

October 2009

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

conducts land use planning only in the areas administered

by BLM. BLM has no planning authority under the

municipal or county planning legislation of the State

of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this map

for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy,

reliability or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

standards. This information may be updated without

notification.

Note: Land Status legend located on Map 1

Map 5

Agua Fria National

Monument / BradshawHarquahala Planning Area

Tortoise Habitat

0 5 10 15

Miles

BLM Wilderness

USFS Wilderness

Interstate

Major Road

Major River, Streams or Wash

Highway

Agua Fria National

Monument Planning Area

Bradshaw Harquahala

Planning Area

Tortoise Habitat

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 126

[Report No. 105–87]

Authorizing supplemental expenditures by the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1997

Mr. SPECTER, from the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, reported the

following original resolution; which was placed on the calendar

SEPTEMBER 26, 1997

Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

SEPTEMBER 30, 1997

Reported by Mr. Warner, without amendment; considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Authorizing supplemental expenditures by the Committee on

Veterans’ Affairs.

1 Resolved, That section 18(b) of Senate Resolution 54,

2 105th Congress, agreed to February 13, 1997, is amended

3 by striking out ‘‘$1,123,430’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

4 ‘‘$1,698,430’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certification

In connection
with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
June 30, 2006 (the Report) by Cellular Technical Services Company, Inc.
(Registrant), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                              
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report
  fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and                        
| |    |                                                                                                                                                              
| | 2. | The
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
  Registrant.

| |     |                          
| | --- | -------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Stephen
  Katz       
| |     |                          
| |     | Stephen Katz             
| |     | Chief
  Executive Officer
| |     | July 28, 2006            

| |     |                                        
| | --- | ---------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Kenneth
  Block                    
| |     |                                        
| |     | Kenneth
  Block                        
| |     | Secretary
  and Chief Financial Officer
| |     | July 28, 2006                          

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 1350 has been provided to Cellular
Technical Services Company, Inc. and will be retained by Cellular Technical
Services Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 10(ss)




<PAGE>   2



                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                           INTERCEL, INC. PENSION PLAN

               (As Amended and Restated Effective April 29, 1994)

This Second Amendment is made on this 21st day of August, 1996, by InterCel,
Inc. ("Intercel") for the purpose of terminating the InterCel, Inc. Pension Plan
(the "Plan"), effective as of November 1, 1996.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended only in the following
         respects: 

         1. A new paragraph is added to Section 10.01 of the Plan, to read as
         follows:

         "The Plan is terminated effective as of November 1, 1996. The Employer
         reserves the right to amend the Plan after that date only for purposes
         of clarification, to implement this Plan termination, to maintain the
         tax-qualified status of the Plan as so terminated, to comply with
         changes in applicable law, or to defer the termination date."


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amendment, having been first duly adopted, is
executed below by a duly authorized officer of the Employer on this 21st day of
August 1996, to be effective as provided herein.


                                             INTERCEL, INC.

                                       By:  
                                           -------------------------------

                                        Title: President & CEO
                                              ----------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAHMEER YOUNG,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 218 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of November, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
# CE2004065EN.01010201.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/102

---

(2004/C 65 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1884/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Trade intensity in euro area

Subject:

Will the Commission please estimate the relationship between trade growth and GDP growth in each of the Member States and indicate whether the advent of the euro has yet had any effect in increasing the trade intensity of GDP growth in participating Member States, compared with non-participating Member States, since its introduction on 1 January 1999?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

(16 July 2003)

The Commission has conducted research in the past into the effects of the creation of the internal market on trade and gross domestic product (GDP) growth but has not recently updated these estimates.

Although to date the Commission has not made estimates for the specific contribution of the euro's introduction on trade developments, a number of studies indicate the introduction of the single currency has led to a significant increase in trade as stated in the reply by the Commission to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1883/03 (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 106.

1

---