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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
THE September 30, 1999 10-Q FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEM
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                     1,084,844
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        45,742
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               3,384
<TRADING-ASSETS>                              13,072
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                5,187,430
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     5,951,191
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       5,807,765
<LOANS>                                   22,736,054
<ALLOWANCE>                                  328,815
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            36,163,338
<DEPOSITS>                                24,351,165
<SHORT-TERM>                               4,525,690
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          464,637
<LONG-TERM>                                3,970,698
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     142,008
<OTHER-SE>                                 2,709,140
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            36,163,338
<INTEREST-LOAN>                            1,239,532
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            488,877
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               2,065
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                           1,730,474
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           505,588
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           289,643
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        935,243
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                109,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             7,055
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              624,610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              499,916
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   499,916
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 332,697
<EPS-BASIC>                                   1.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   1.91
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  3.92
<LOANS-NON>                                   93,717
<LOANS-PAST>                                  39,245
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                7,078
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             322,814
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                132,124
<RECOVERIES>                                  16,901
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            328,815
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         179,126
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      149,689



</TABLE>
A99A0752.

#### SIMMONS v. GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

(510 SE2d 618)

Decided January 5, 1999

Reconsideration denied January 20,1999.

*Gladys H. Pollard,*for appellant.

*Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Dennis R. Dunn, Susan L. Rutherford, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, Bryan K. Webb, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Appellant Simmons received a notice of proposed adverse action from his employer state agency, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, based on evidence that Simmons “willfully misappropriated state funds by converting Purchase of Evidence Purchase of Information (PEPI) funds to [his] own personal use. . . .” Simmons’ subsequent dismissal was appealed to the State Personnel Board, where the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that “Appellant did engage in misconduct by borrowing PEPI [funds] from subordinates for his personal use[, and further concluded that] the sanction [of dismissal] imposed by the [employer state agency] is appropriate for the misconduct engaged in by the Appellant.” Upon further administrative review, the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were adopted by the State Personnel Board. Applying the “any evidence” standard of review, the Superior Court of DeKalb County affirmed Simmons’ dismissal. This direct appeal followed. *Held:*

Appeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of state and local administrative agencies shall be by application in the nature of a petition for discretionary appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) and (b). Our jurisdiction is invoked only by following the appropriate procedure, and where that procedure is not followed this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal. *Summerset v. Dept. of Offender Rehabilitation,*167 Ga. App. 730, 731 (307 SE2d 678); *Dept. of Offender Rehabilitation v. Meeks,*165 Ga. App. 269 (299 SE2d 757). In the case sub judice, appellant failed to comply with the mandatory procedures for seeking discretionary appeal from the superior court’s affirmance of adverse administrative action. Consequently, the appeal in Case No. A99A0752 must be dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Andrews and Ruffin, JJ., concur.*
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-15T11:38:34Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-15T11:38:35Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-15T11:38:35Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="12629">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-15T11:38:34Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>OPINION % o-7517 WAS NEVER ISSUED OK 
</p>
<p>WAS WITHDRAWN. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
# C_2015354EN.01001901.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Denis Malcorps and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

(Case C-388/15)

(2015/C 354/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle

Applicants:

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Defendant:

Intervener: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

Intervener:

Question referred

Question referred

The Regional Development Implementation Plan (GRUP) contains planning rules under which, in mandatory terms, the development of areas (more specifically, for seaport- and water-related businesses, for a logistics park, for waterway infrastructure and for traffic and transport infrastructure) which have ecological features (areas hosting a natural habitat type or the habitat of a species for which the special area of conservation concerned was designated) which make a contribution to the conservation objectives of the special areas of conservation concerned, is possible only after the creation of sustainable habitats in ecological core areas (designated within the Natura 2000 area) and following a decision by the Flemish Government preceded by an opinion from the Flemish administrative body responsible for nature conservation — which should form part of an application for a planning permit with a view to the development of the aforementioned facilities — that the sustainable creation of the ecological core areas has been successful.

Can those planning rules with their envisaged positive developments of ecological core areas be taken into account in the determination, under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1), of potentially significant effects and/or in the making of an appropriate assessment, or can those planning rules be regarded only as ‘compensatory measures’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, in so far as the conditions laid down in that provision have been satisfied?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

1

---
PART II.  OTHER INFORMATION

Item 6.  Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K.

(a)	Exhibits

A list of exhibits included as part of this Form 10-Q is set forth in an Exhibit Index that immediately precedes such exhibits.

Form 8-K dated July 19, 2000, to report a second quarter earnings release which was filed as Exhibit 99.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 19, 2000 for UAL Corporation.

Form 8-K dated August 1, 2000, to report final forms of exhibits related to the offering of United Air Lines, Inc.'s Pass Through Certificates, Series 2000-1, which was filed with reference to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No.333-90657) and the Prospectus Supplement dated July 20, 2000, to the Prospectus, dated July 19, 2000.

	Form 8-K dated August 11, 2000, to report additional exhibits related to the offering of United Air Lines, Inc.'s Pass Through Certificates, Series 2000-1, which was filed with reference to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No.333-90657)and the Prospectus Supplement dated July 20, 2000, to the Prospectus, dated July 19, 2000.

	Form 8-K dated August 17, 2000, to report a press release, reporting an expectation of lower third quarter 2000 earnings.

SIGNATURES

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

 

UNITED AIR LINES, INC.

 

 
By:  /s/ Douglas A. Hacker 
     Douglas A. Hacker 
     Executive Vice President - 
     Finance and Planning and 
     Chief Financial Officer 
     (principal financial officer)   
By:  /s/ M. Lynn Hughitt 
     M. Lynn Hughitt 
     Vice President and Controller 
     (principal accounting officer)

 

 

 

Dated:  November 9, 2000

 

 

Exhibit Index 
Exhibit No.
Description
  12
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  27
Financial Data Schedule

 

</HTML>

</TEXT>

</DOCUMENT>
EXHIBIT
32.1







TWL
CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of TWL Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis J. Cagan, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:





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.








Date:           February
14, 2008





/s/Dennis
      J. CaganDennis
      J. CaganChief
      Executive Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
TWL Corporation and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           86,339,757
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     921,950
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 87,261,707
<CASH>                                         493,477
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             585,148
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         5,092,867
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,788,873
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                40,816,390
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            22,495,105
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 2,091,750
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                500,001
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,836,781
<OTHER-SE>                                     37,484,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,788,873
<PREMIUMS>                                     18,232,825
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            2,414,861
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             919
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 3,495,898
<BENEFITS>                                     9,896,411
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    5,239,049
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           3,782,973
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,226,070
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,576,332
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,649,738
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,649,738
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.58
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0
        


</TABLE>
May 8, 1944

No. 49401.

#### Protests 28850-K-12070, etc., of William Henderson et al.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing (April 15, 1944) granted.
#### Ayer *versus*Sawyer.

A surveyor of lumber is not bound to keep a record of his surveys. Ifis minutes are not of themselves evidence.

Exceptions.

Assumpsit for the price of mill logs. Plaintiff called one Averill, who testified that he was a surveyor, chosen by the town; that he surveyed and measured the logs, and made a record thereof.

Defendant objected to witness’ testifying as to the quantity, and insisted that the survey book was the rightful evidence. The objection was overruled, and the witness testified upon that point.

Defendant excepts.

*Cutting,*for defendant,

adverted to R. S. chap. 66, sect. 28, 29.

The surveyor’s record is the best evidence. *Dole*v. *Allen,*4 Maine, 527.

*Peters,*for plaintiff.

Wells, J.,

orally.—The witness was properly admitted. The statute does . not require a surveyor to keep a record. What minutes he did make for convenience, or otherwise, the parties had no right to require. They are not evidence.

*Exceptions overruled.*
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, McClanahan and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

Argued by teleconference 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 2551-07-2 JUDGE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN 

 MARCH 18, 2008 

PAIGE ELIZABETH ANDERSON 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Beverly W. Snukals, Judge 

 Karen Misbach, Assistant Attorney General (Robert F. McDonnell, 

 Attorney General, on brief), for appellant. 

 Patrick D. Kelley for appellee. 

 The Commonwealth appeals an order of the trial court granting Paige Elizabeth 

Anderson’s motion to suppress evidence. Appellee stands indicted in the Circuit Court of the 

City of Richmond for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-248.1. The charge arose out of the seizure of a knotted plastic baggie of marijuana from 

Anderson’s purse, which was located in her vehicle. The circuit court granted Anderson’s 

motion to suppress and ruled that the marijuana, located in the baggie and recovered from 

Anderson’s purse in the vehicle, was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the 

United States Constitution. 

 In reviewing the trial court’s decision on Anderson’s motion to suppress evidence, we 

consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences flowing from that evidence in the light most 

favorable to Anderson, the prevailing party. Jackson v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 666, 672, 594 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 -

S.E.2d 595, 598 (2004). “[T]he burden is upon [the Commonwealth, the losing party below,] to 

show that the ruling, when the evidence is considered most favorably to [Anderson, the 

prevailing party below], constituted reversible error.” Lovelace v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 

120, 124, 554 S.E.2d 688, 689 (2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

 Considering the totality of the circumstances and viewing the evidence and all reasonable 

inferences flowing from the evidence in the light most favorable to Anderson, we agree with the 

trial court’s conclusion that Grandison v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 316, 645 S.E.2d 298 (2007), 

controls the outcome of the case, and consistent therewith, the evidence did not establish 

probable cause to believe there was marijuana inside the baggie in Anderson’s purse. See also

Brown v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 414, 421, 620 S.E.2d 760, 763 (2005). 

 For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 Affirmed.
(Reap. Dec. 8983)

Entry Nos. 4440; 5102.

#### W. X. Huber Company *v.*United States

(Decided September 5, 1957)

*Stein & Shostak*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These two appeals for reappraisement relate to decorated chinaware exported from France and entered at the port of Los Angeles.

The cases have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation wherein the parties agree that the issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those which were the subject of the decision in *Bert Friedberg*& *Company*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 596, Reap. Dec. 8590, the record in which was incorporated herein by consent. In that case, the court held foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise there under consideration, and that such statutory value did not include the so-called “French sole or unique tax.”

An agreed set of facts, included in the stipulation of submission, establishes that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise involved herein is statutory foreign value, and that such value for each of the items in question is the entered value, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 56161.

protests 141747-K, etc. (New York).

#### Friedman Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

*379Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2016279EN.01000702.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/7

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Verners Pudāns v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-462/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Common Agricultural Policy - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Direct support schemes - Article 29(1) - Obligation to make payments in full to the beneficiaries - Income tax))

(2016/C 279/11)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verners Pudāns

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Operative part

Operative part

Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which applies income tax to payments under the support schemes listed in Annex I to that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015

1

---
Birds of 

Prey NCA

McInnis

Canyons NCA

Gunnison

Gorge NCA

King Range NCA

Black Rock DesertHigh Rock Canyon

Emigrant Trails NCA

Red Rock

Canyon NCA

Sloan

Canyon

NCA

Las Cienegas

NCA

San Pedro

 Riparian

 NCA

Gila Box

Riparian

NCA

El Malpais

NCA

California

Desert CA

National Landscape Conservation System

Steese

NCA

4/18/07

± 0 100 200 300 400 50

Miles * Alaska is not to this scale

** The National Landscape Conservation System continues to grow as special areas

are designated. Visit BLM's website periodically for updated information: www.blm.gov.

Landscapes of the American Spirit

0 200 400 600

Miles

BLM Administered Land

Interstate

National Conservation Area

National Conservation Areas