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

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary  information  extracted from the Balance Sheet at
September  30, 2000 and  Statement of  Operations  for the three and nine months
ended  September 30, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1000

<S>                             <C>           <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    JUL-01-2000   JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-2000   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                   1,080        1,080
<SECURITIES>                                 0            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                0            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0            0
<INVENTORY>                                  0            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             0            0
<PP&E>                                 240,455      240,455
<DEPRECIATION>                         (38,228)     (38,228)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         206,557      206,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        0            0
<BONDS>                                142,000      142,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0            0
<PREFERRED>                                  0            0
<COMMON>                                     0            0
<OTHER-SE>                              58,874       58,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           206,557      206,557
<SALES>                                 10,270       30,457
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        10,365       30,779
<CGS>                                    3,818       10,988
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            3,818       10,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         3,011        9,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       2,272        6,809
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          1,264        3,781
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      1,264        3,781
<DISCONTINUED>                               0            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0            0
<CHANGES>                                    0            0
<NET-INCOME>                             1,264        3,781
<EPS-BASIC>                                0            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0            0



</TABLE>
1The court notes, however, that in the first full paragraph on page 4 of the R & R,

Magistrate Judge Caracappa quotes from 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), but inadvertently cites to 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). The correct cite should be to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 DARRYL E. DUNST

[DA 7547]

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

et al.

CIVIL ACTION

No. 04-4422

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2005, upon careful and independent consideration of

the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of

United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.1

2. The petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED.

3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.

4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed for statistical purposes.

_______________________

Pollak, J.

Case 2:04-cv-04422-LP Document 10 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         7,203
<SECURITIES>                                   3,100
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                   316
<INVENTORY>                                    2,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               18,245
<PP&E>                                         4,924
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,892
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       58
<OTHER-SE>                                     20,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   22,758
<SALES>                                        13,304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,518
<CGS>                                          3,651
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,117)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (856)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,261)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,261)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.22)


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 19, 2016

No. 04-16-00536-CV

BEXAR-MEDINA-ATASCOSA COUNTIES WATER CONTROL AND

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 (BMA),

A ppellant / Cross-Appellee

v.

BANDERA COUNTY RIVER AUTHORITY AND GROUNDWATER DISTRICT

, Appellee / Cross-Appellant

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-13-351

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This court has determined this appeal is appropriate for referral to alternative dispute

resolution (ADR). 4 TH T EX

. A PP

. (S AN A NTONIO ) L OC

. R. 2. All further communications with

this court by the parties regarding ADR shall be directed to the clerk of the court.

All parties are ORDERED to respond in writing by September 29, 2016 stating: (1) any

objection to mediation; and (2) whether the parties agree on the selection of a mediator and, if so,

the name and address of the mediator of their choice.

If the parties agree to mediation and select a mediator, this court will issue an order

suspending all appellate deadlines for forty-five days to allow the parties to concentrate on the

scheduling and completion of the mediation process.Is it so ORDERED on September 19, 2016.

______________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on September 19, 2016.

___ ___________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.2
 WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
FORM 10-Q
Quarter ended September 30, 2008
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESULTS
  
    
    This Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
    
    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial position and results of operations of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. as of
and for the periods presented.
 /s/ Cynthia A. MahlCynthia A. MahlSenior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer November 14, 2008
---

Exhibit
32.1


In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Alloy Steel International,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gene
Kostecki, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, that:
  (1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 By:
              /s/Gene
      KosteckiDate:
      December 23, 2008
              
              
              Gene KosteckiChief
      Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Alex Ko, certify that:


|   |                                                                               
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-K/A of Hope Bancorp, Inc.; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.










|                     |            
|-------------------- | -----------
|Dated: April 9, 2018 | /s/ Alex Ko

_____________________________________________________


Alex Ko


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Apri116, 2012. 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

D/B/A Vertical Solutions 

D 

w 

.c:-

Please accept this letter as our formal petition for a relief from 14 CFR part 120.1 (Applicability). 

· We want to combine our Drug & Alcohol abatement program so that we may operate our 

established Part 91 Sight Seeing Tours with our established Part 135 operations under one 

drug program. 

Planet Air, Inc. d/b/a Vertical Solutions operates one aircraft under Part 135 Single Pilot On 

Demand and also has a LOA under Part 91.147 to conduct Tour Operations in all its aircraft. 

At this time, we have one drug program in the company, which was intended to satisfy both 

of these operations and all pilots and mechanics are enrolled under this drug and alcohol 

testing program. As instructed, by the Federal Aviation Drug Abatement Division, after a 

recent Drug Program Inspection the one Drug Program is not recognized by both the 

LOA(91.147) for Tour Operations and the 135 Single Pilot Operations. We are requesting 

that in lieu of maintaining two drug programs for the same company to combine the LOA 

and 135 under our current drug and alcohol testing program due to the size and scope of our 

operations and for the fact we are one company doing both 135 and 91 tour operations. 

Planet Air, Inc. d/b/a Vertical Solutions has met the public interest in ensuring that illicit 

drug users are detected and prevented from performing a safety sensitive position. Requiring 

Planet Air, Inc. d/b/a Vertical Solutions to duplicate drug testing programs for Part 91.14 7 

and Part 135 is repetitive and is adding unnecessary financial and administrative burden to 

such a small company. Combining the programs would continue to meet the intent of 14 

C.P.R. 120. 

The request for this exemption would not adversely affect safety because all of the 

employees who will perform safety sensitive functions for Planet Air, Inc. d/b/a Vertical 

Solutions have been subject to the drug testing requirements as outlined in 14 C.P.R. 120. 
The regulation which we seek the exemption is the following: 

14 C.F.R. 120.1 a) All air carriers and operators certificated under part 119 of 

this chapter authorized to conduct operations under part 121 or part 135 of this 

chapter, all air traffic control facilities not operated by the FAA or by or under 

contract to the U.K military; and all operators as defined in 14 CFR 91.147. 

Planet Air, Inc. d/b/a Vertical Solutions respectfully requests that we receive an exemption 

from having two separate drug and alcohol programs and are able to combine the Part 135 

and the Part 91.147 drug testing programs. 

If you require any additional information or have questions concerning our petition, please do not' 

hesitate to give us a call. 

P.O. BOX 9686 San juan, P.R. 00908- 787.944.3014/787.944.0086 

info@verticalsolutionspr.com - www.verticalsolutionspr.com
# C_2017195EN.01000701.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 31 October 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Vincenzo D’Andria and Giuseppina D’Andria

(Case C-555/16)

(2017/C 195/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Salerno

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Vincenzo D’Andria and Giuseppina D’Andria

By order of 4 April 2017 the Court (Seventh Chamber) held that:

| 1. | Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.

| 2. | Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS : NO. 02-2746

ORDER

AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2003, in view of the Second Modified

Scheduling Order submitted by the parties and filed this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this

matter shall be placed in the trial pool as of November 1, 2004.

BY THE COURT

 

JOHN R. PADOVA, J.

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 143 Filed 10/20/2003 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit      21**

**FirstFlight,      Inc.**

**Subsidiaries      as of December 31, 2007**

| **Name of                Subsidiary**                                          | **State of                Incorporation** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                                                           |                                      |
|                                                                           |                                      |
| **Airborne, Inc. d/b/a                FirstFlight**                            | **New York**                              |
|                                                                           |                                      |
| **H24                  Aviation Advisors, LLC**                                | **New York**                              |
|                                                                           |                                      |
| **FBO Air Wilkes-Barre, Inc.                d/b/a                FirstFlight** | **Pennsylvania**                          |
|                                                                           |                                      |
| **FBO                  Air WB Leasing, Inc. **                            | **Pennsylvania**                          |
|                                                                           |                                      |
| **FBO Air Garden City, Inc.                d/b/a                FirstFlight**  | **Kansas**                                |
|                                                                           |                                      |
| **Margeson & Associates,                Inc.**                             | **New                York**               |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STITH

 VS. C.A. NO. 02-4176

MERCK AND CO.

ORDER

WEINER, J. MARCH 15, 2004

The motion of the defendant for judgment on the 

pleadings (Doc. #8) is DENIED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

 _________________________

 CHARLES R. WEINER

Case 2:02-cv-04176-CRW Document 15 Filed 03/16/2004 Page 1 of 1
VUE, Inc.

6956 East Broad Street, Suite 239

Columbus, OH 43213

Phone (614) 883-5700

Fax (614) 883-5701

Cell (614) 595-5300

mriley2003@yahoo.com

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

March 21, 2013

Exemption No. 9917A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0373

VUE, Inc. is requesting an amendment to Exemption Number 9917A, Regulatory Docket Number 

(FAA-2009-0373) under part 14 CFR part 91. We are requesting that a PPE (Pilot Proficiency Examiner) 

be allowed to conduct the required test for the Single Pilot Exemption No. 9917A. Below you will see 

the exact changes we are requesting for Exemption Number 9917A, Regulatory Docket Number (FAA2009-0373). 

6. C. ii. Changed to 

By an appropriately rated FAA-DPE (Designated Pilot Examiner), PPE (Pilot Proficiency 

Examiner) or an FAA inspector who is qualified and authorized to conduct test in the Cessna 500 

series airplanes;

10. b. Changed to 

The applicant will be restricted from performing circling approaches as PIC when 

weather conditions are less than basic visual flight rules weather minimums until the circling 

approaches have been satisfactorily demonstrated in an actual airplane or simulator qualified

for the circling maneuver to an FAA-DPE (Designated Pilot Examiner), PPE (Pilot Proficiency 

Examiner) or an FAA inspector.

Due to the current budget crisis involving the sequester, this amendment will save time and 

money by using a larger group of inspectors, and for the private sector to cover the cost of check rides 

when appropriate. 

Thank you for all your support to us in the field

Mike Riley

Director
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com 2518 Auburn Dri v e , C o coa, FL 32926 ( 321)

- 261

- 2547 uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.co m July 21, 2015 U. S. Department of Transportation D ocket O perations West Building Ground Floor, Room W 1 2
- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590
Re: Summary Grant Amendment to Section 333 Petition for Exemption pursuant to Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11 in Regulatory Docket No s . FAA - 2015 - 15 33 - 0001 and FAA - 2015 - 1533 - 0002 Dear S ir or Madam: Homeland Surveillance & Electronics, LLC ( HSE
- UAV ) , filed for a Petition f or E xemption/Rulemaking, p ursuant to Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11 , for the purposes of low
- risk, aerial mapping, surveying, product demonstration flights for potential customers, product training for potential customers, research and development, and structural inspections

. The Petition for Exempti on is contained within Regulatory Docket No. FAA
- 2015
- 15 33
- 0001 and action was taken by the FAA on 05/08/2015

. HSE
- UAV subsequently requested an a mendment to Regulatory Docket No. FAA
- 2015
- 15 33
- 0001 to allow the Leptron RDASS electrically powered 4 rotor system, under the same terms and conditions contained in the original Petition for Exemption . That amendment is contained within Regulatory Docket No. FAA
- 2015
- 1533
- 000 2 and action was taken by the FAA on 05/ 26 /2015. On July 20, 2015, Exemption No. 12086 was issued to Leptron Industrial Robotic Helicopters (Leptron) by the FAA for both the Leptron Avenger and the Leptron RDASS, the exact same platforms requested by HSE
- UAV in FAA
- 2015
- 1533
- 0001 and FAA
2015
- 1533
- 0002 respectively

. As a result of this approval, HSE
- UAV is requesting a Summary Grant review of their previously submitted petitions because the FAA has already granted Exemption No. 12086 to Leptron for their products a nd the technology to support Summary Grant of HSE
UAV’ s Section 333 Petition and expedite the process. Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for a Summary Grant a mendment

.UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com 2518 Auburn Dri v e , C o coa, FL 32926 ( 321)

- 261

- 2547 uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.co m cc : Bill Crozier Joe Morra Robert Papas Jake Troutman Dean Griffith, Esq.
# C_2016335EN.01003201.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 30 May 2016 — Stanisław Pieńkowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

(Case C-307/16)

(2016/C 335/42)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stanisław Pieńkowski

Applicant:

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Articles 146(1)(b), 147, 131 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes application of the exemption to a taxable person who does not satisfy the condition relating to attainment of the relevant turnover ceiling for the previous tax year and who also has not concluded an agreement with a person authorised to refund tax to travellers?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---