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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ISOMET CORP
AND SUBSIDIARIES - DEC 31, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             173
<SECURITIES>                                     2,016
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,564
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,409
<PP&E>                                           2,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,087
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,256
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,928
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,752
<SALES>                                          6,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,017
<CGS>                                            3,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,466
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,551
<INCOME-TAX>                                       484
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,067
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,067
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT   99.1









CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



I, Jonathan P. Ward, the chief executive officer of The  ServiceMaster  Company,
certify  that  (i) the  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q for the  quarter  ended
September 30, 2002,  fully complies with  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the  information  contained in
such  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial
condition and results of operations of The ServiceMaster Company.








                                                            /s/ Jonathan P. Ward
                                                              Jonathan P. Ward
                                                              November 14, 2002
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Air Quality Modeling Materials used in estimating CAPs and air toxics for the final 

light-duty vehicle 2017-2025 greenhouse gas rule

FROM: Margaret Zawacki

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799-DRAFT-XXXX

DATE: August 6, 2012

The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit data files which were used in the air quality

modeling analyses for the final light-duty vehicle 2017-2025 greenhouse gas rule. The air quality

modeling analyses are discussed in Section III.G of the preamble, Chapter 6 of the Regulatory

Impact Analysis (RIA) and in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document. 

Information on the air quality modeling inventories is discussed in Chapter 4 of the RIA. 

Following is a list of the information contained on the enclosed disc:

- deposition DBF files folder: gridded annual nitrogen and sulfur deposition difference data for 

2030 baseline and LDGHG 2017-2025 control scenario

- toxics DBF files folder: gridded annual and seasonal (winter/summer) toxics difference data 

for 2030 baseline and LDGHG 2017-2025 control scenario

- Ozone_DVs_LDGHG_2017-2025.xlsx: county-level 8-hour max ozone Design Value 

projections for 2030 baseline and LDGHG 2017-2025 control scenario

- AnnualPM2.5_DVs_LDGHG_2017-2025.xlsx: county-level annual PM2.5 Design Value 

projections for 2030 baseline and LDGHG 2017-2025 control scenario

- DailyPM2.5_DVs_LDGHG_2017_2025.xlsx: county-level 24-hour PM2.5 Design Value 

projections for 2030 baseline and LDGHG 2017-2025 control scenario

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
- Visibility_LDGHG_2017-2025.xlsx: Class 1 Area visibility projections for the 20% worst days 

for 2005 baseline, 2030 baseline and LDGHG 2017-2025 control scenario

- CMAQv4.7.1_Release Notes.doc: RELEASE_NOTES for CMAQv4.7.1 from ORD, Shawn 

Roselle

- met.2005.12EUS1.pdf: Baker K. and P. Dolwick. Meteorological Modeling Performance 

Evaluation for the Annual 2005 Eastern U.S. 12-km Domain Simulation, USEPA/OAQPS, 

February 2, 2009.

- met.2005.12WUS1.pdf: Baker K. and P. Dolwick. Meteorological Modeling Performance 

Evaluation for the Annual 2005 Western U.S. 12-km Domain Simulation, USEPA/OAQPS, 

February 2, 2009.

- met.2005.36US1.pdf: Baker K. and P. Dolwick. Meteorological Modeling Performance 

Evaluation for the Annual 2005 Continental U.S. 36-km Domain Simulation, USEPA/OAQPS, 

February 2, 2009.

Attachments
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-0733 Directorate ID: 2015-SW-040-AD

Helicopter Model: 

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 2,236 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The proposed actions are intended to prevent an main rotor blade fatigue crack, which 

could lead to MRB failure and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

Costs:

 The visual inspection would require 1 work hour. No parts would be 

needed, so the cost per helicopter would total $85. The cost for the U.S. fleet would 

total $190,060.

 Altering each main rotor blade (MRB), if necessary, would require 2 work 

hours and $65 for parts. We estimate a total cost of $235 per helicopter and $525,460 

for the U.S. fleet. 

 Replacing a MRB, if necessary, would require 3 work hours. Parts would 

cost $19,900 for the Model R44 and R44 II and $20,900 for the R66 helicopter for a 

total cost of $20,155 and $21,155, respectively, per MRB.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Fred Guerin
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

-- Page 1

(Electronic Format)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

Rule No(s): 26. 10 Date adopted/Amended/Rescinded: June 28, 2011

Rule Title(s): New Source Review

- Prevention Of Si gnificant Deterioration (PSD)

Date Submitted to ARB: August 9 , 2011

If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended (or Adopted): J anuary 13, 1998

Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? Yes No ( If No, do not complete remainder of form)

District Contact: Donald R. Price Phone Number: 805/645

- 1407 E

- mail Address: don@vcapcd.org

Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Change s: New Rule Amended Rule

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) is a federal pre

- construction permitting program for facilities located

in areas that are classified as attainment for particular pollutants. PSD Rule 26.10, which required a PSD permit

from EPA, has been repealed.

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Check): ROG (NOx) SO2

(CO) PM TAC (name):

II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS

Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, will result in quantifiable changes in emissions. Attach refere nce(s) for emission

factor(s) and other information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emi ssion information provided below was determined

.

Net Effect on Emissions: Increase Decrease N/A

Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP for this Source Category:

Inv entory Year Used to Calculate Changes in Emissions: Area Affected:

Future Year Control Profile Estimate (Provide information on as many years as possible) :CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD R ULE EVALUATION FORM

-- Page 2

(Electronic Format)

Baseline Inventory in the S IP for the Control Measure:

Emissions Reduction Commitment in the SIP for the Control Measure:

Revised Baseline Inventory (if any):

Revised Emission Reduction Estimate (if developed):

Note that the district’s input to the Rule Evaluation Form will not be used as input to the ARB’s emission forecasting and

planning.

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District is: Attainment Nonattainment Split

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Sources Affected by this Amendment: N/A

Percent in Nonattainment Area: 100 %

Number of Large ( > 100 TPY) Sources Controlled: zero Percen t in Nonattainment Area: N/A %

Name(s) and Location(s) (city and county) of Large ( > 100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule (Attach additional sheets as

necessary) : N/A

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Does the Rule Include Emission Limits that are Continuous? Yes No

If Yes, Those Limits are in Section(s) of the Rule.

Other Methods in the Rule for Achieving Emission Reductions are:

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

The Rule Contains:

Emission Limits in Section(s): Work Practice Standards in Section(s):

Recordkeeping Requirements in Section(s): Reporting Requirements in Section(s):CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

-- Page 3

(Electronic Format)

5/1/2002 3

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN

No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts attainment

Discussion:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROWLAN DEWITT PUGH, No. CIV S-04-1090 MCE PAN P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

 S. RANSDELL, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No.

262.

On June 9, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01090-MCE -PAN Document 11 Filed 07/26/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 9, 2005, are

adopted in full; and 

2. Defendants’ November 1, 2004, motion to dismiss is

granted and this action is dismissed. 

DATE: July 26, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01090-MCE -PAN Document 11 Filed 07/26/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[Proposed] Order Granting

Defendants’ Request for an Extension of Time

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

STEVEN WILLIAMS SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT NUCHOLS, et al.,

Defendants.

2:04-cv-1167 LKK PAN P

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR

AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Defendants’ first request for an extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff’s

complaint was considered by this Court, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants have until June 23, 2006, within which to

file a response to plaintiff’s complaint.

DATED: May 4, 2006.

/will1167.ext

Case 2:04-cv-01167-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 52001.

#### Fisba Fabrics, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 55044-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Follovdng the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 46694.

#### Protests 990438-G, etc., of Seaboard Lumber Sales Co., Ltd., et al. (Providence).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been' assessed only on the net footage imported. The protests were sustained to that extent.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS LEE JACKSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 04-983 LKK GGH P

vs.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ORDER &

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. By order filed on April 11, 2003, this court directed plaintiff to show cause why defendant

Campbell, for the reasons stated therein, should not be dismissed from this action under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m). In a response, dated April 18, 2005, plaintiff requested dismissal of defendant

Campbell. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff has discharged the court’s show

cause order, filed on April 11, 2005.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m),

defendant Campbell be dismissed from this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

Case 2:04-cv-00983-LKK -GGH Document 36 Filed 07/01/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 6/30/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

jack0983.dis

Case 2:04-cv-00983-LKK -GGH Document 36 Filed 07/01/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 3.3











CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT


OF THE


AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


OF


GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC.





Anthony L. Williams hereby certifies that:





ONE :  The original name of this company is Globus Medical, Inc. and the date of filing the original Certificate of Incorporation of this company with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware was March 3, 2003.  The Board of Directors of the company has duly adopted a resolution pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware setting forth a proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of the company and declaring said amendment to be advisable.  The requisite stockholders of the company have duly approved said proposed amendment in accordance with Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.  The proposed amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.





TWO:  He is the duly elected and acting Vice President, Corporate Counsel and Secretary of Globus Medical, Inc., a Delaware corporation.





THREE:  The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of this company filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on June 21, 2012, is hereby amended as follows:


|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | Section F.5(f) of Article IV, “Adjustment for Conversion Upon a Significant Event,” of the Corporation’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety as follows:




“(f)  Intentionally omitted.”








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Globus Medical, Inc. has caused this Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be signed by its Vice President, Corporate Counsel and Secretary this, on this the 7 th day of August 2012.





GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC.








By:


Anthony L. Williams,


Vice President, Corporate Counsel and Secretary
Exhibit 23(b), Form 10-K
                                                      Kansas City Life
                                                      Insurance Company


Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 2-97351) pertaining to the Savings and Investment Plan of Kansas
City Life Insurance Company of our report dated February 21, 1997, with respect
to the financial statements and schedules of the Kansas City Life Insurance
Company Savings and Investment Plan included in this Annual Report (Form 11-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1996.

/s/Ernst & Young LLP
Ernst & Young LLP


Kansas City, Missouri
March 24, 1997

 
                                                        Exhibit 27, Form 10-K
                                                        Kansas City Life
                                                        Insurance Company
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN LLOYD HRONIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1267 GEB DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS MEDICAL

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, et al., ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 20, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01267-GEB-DAD Document 19 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 20, 2005, are adopted in

full; 

2. Plaintiff’s August 9, 2004 application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied;

and

3. This action is dismissed with prejudice on the grounds that it is factually

frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, is duplicative, and is barred by

the doctrine of res judicata.

Dated: January 26, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

/hron1267.804

Case 2:04-cv-01267-GEB-DAD Document 19 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Nelson A. Locke, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Amstar Financial Services, 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;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
          the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date:  February 22, 2008

/s/Nelson A. Locke
------------------------
Nelson A. Locke
Chief Executive Officer