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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1502000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8673000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    197000
<INVENTORY>                                    2435000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              16377000
<PP&E>                                        22881000
<DEPRECIATION>                                16428000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                27383000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         13310000
<BONDS>                                        8437000
<COMMON>                                        246000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     6459000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  27383000
<SALES>                                       24721000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              24721000
<CGS>                                         20786000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 23510000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              473000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 749000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    325000 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             424000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0      
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    424000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        


</TABLE>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant, } } } } } In the Matter ofThermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. v. FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, LLC, Respondent. Docket No. FAA-2015-1321 JudgeTBA

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE To avoid confusion, the undersigned hereby gives further notice ofhis appearance in the above-captioned matter on behalfofthe Respondent named inthe Complaint, Fisher Scientific Company, LLC ("FisherSci"), which is a wholly owned subsidiary ofThermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. ("Thermo Fisher"). Please also take note that T o Fisher is the real party-in-interest in this case and its name, not FisherSci's, should a ofall future filings. Dated:



# ~~

(email) jcox@potomacstrategyassociates.com (tel) 703-757-5866 Counsel for Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., and Fisher Scientific Co., LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 10,2015, the undersigned hand delivered or sent by U.S. Postal mail one copy ofthis Notice ofAppearance to each ofthe persons listed below. William Vines, Esq. Regional Counsel, ASO-7 U.S. Department ofTransportation FAA, Southern Region P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 

# RECEI\/ED JUN 1 02015 

## HEARING DOCKET Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Federal Aviation Administration Wilbur Wright Bldg., Suite 2WIOOO 600 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591
#### Linda Altenberg Verlander, wife of/and Richard G. VERLANDER, Jr. v. Raymond L. HOFFER.

No. 61161.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1978.

In re: Linda Altenberg Verlander, wife of and Richard G. Verlander, Jr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 351 So.2d 229.

Denied.
#### Charles R. CAPLINGER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-236.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 10, 1971.

Philip A. Hubbart and Lewis S. Kimler, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Barry Scott Richard, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Harrison v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 427; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1971, 246 So.2d 169; Tillman v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 246 (opinion filed April 20, 1971); Jones v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 517 (opinion filed May 25, 1971).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6250

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GREGORY WHYTE, a/k/a Charles Chambler, a/k/a

Charlos Chambler, a/k/a Manny,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting

by designation. (CR-91-357-HAR, CA-97-4219-HNM)

Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Whyte, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Whyte seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, because we find that counsel was not ineffective, we affirm. See Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); see also Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364

(1993). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33423]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Steam Generator Tube Inspection Techniques; Issue

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Issuance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued Generic 
Letter (GL) 97-05 to all holders of operating licenses for pressurized-
water reactors, except those who have permanently ceased operations and 
have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor 
vessel, to emphasize the importance of performing steam generator tube 
inservice inspections using qualified techniques in accordance with the 
requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and to require certain 
information from addressees to determine whether they are in compliance 
with the current licensing basis for their respective facilities given 
their steam generator tube inservice inspection practices. This generic 
letter only requests information from the addressees under the 
provisions of Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and 10 
CFR 50.54(f).
    The generic letter is available in the NRC Public Document Room 
under accession number 9712120014.

DATES: The generic letter was issued on December 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Not applicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phillip J. Rush, at (301) 415-2790.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This generic letter does not constitute a 
backfit as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) since it does not impose 
modifications of or additions to structures, systems or components or 
to design or operation of an addressee's facility. It also does not 
impose an interpretation of the Commission's rules that is either new 
or different from a previous staff position. The staff, therefore, has 
not performed a backfit analysis.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of December 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack W. Roe,
Acting Director, Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-33423 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Amendment No. 10 to
                     Eugene R. McGrath Employment Agreement


      WHEREAS, Eugene R. McGrath (the "Employee") and Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc. (the "Company") entered into an Employment
Agreement effective September 1, l990 (the "Agreement");

      WHEREAS, the parties to the Agreement desire to amend the Agreement to
increase the basic salary payable to the Employee; and

      WHEREAS,  paragraph 12 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be
amended  from time to time by a written  instrument  executed by the Company and
the Employee;

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing the parties hereto agree
as follows:

      1. The Agreement is amended,  effective September 1, l999, to increase the
Employee's  basic  salary  set  forth in  clause  (i) of  paragraph  3(a) of the
Agreement  from  $890,000  per annum to $975,000  per annum,  subject to all the
terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement relating to the basic salary.

      2. In all other respects,  the Agreement  remains in full force and effect
as amended hereby.

      IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed
by its duly authorized  officer and its Corporate seal to be affixed hereto, and
the Employee has hereto set his hand the day and year set forth below.

                  CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.


                         By:        Charles F. Soutar
                                    Charles F. Soutar
                                Executive Vice President


                         By:        Eugene R. McGrath
                                    Eugene R. McGrath


Dated:  July 27, 1999

Attest:

Approved by the Board the 27th day of July, 1999.


 By:     Archie M. Bankston
         Archie M. Bankston
         Secretary
#### J. Robert HOUGH, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. John STEMBRIDGE, Respondent.

No. 44125.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 26, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed, sua sponte.
Exhibit
4.88


 


Summary
of the Second Amendment to Rural Partnership Agreement, entered into on April 16, 2020, in connection with Fazenda Serra Grande. 


 


Parties:
Brasilagro Companhia Brasileira de Propriedades Agrícolas, as the company interested in entering a rural partnership with and
Irineu Parcianello and Haidê Parcianello, as the owners of the land.


 


Purpose:  Amend
the Rural Partnership Agreement, entered into on December 26, 2019, and amended on April 16, 2020, in connection with the possession
and exploitation of 5,473 arable hectares of Fazenda Serra Grande, in order to (i) formalize the financial settlement of R$250,480.00
to Irineu Parcianello and Haidê Parcianello, regarding the parties debits and credits; (ii) extend the partnership area in additional
540 arable hectares, consolidating the arable area in 6,013 hectares; (iii) reduce and consolidate Irineu Parcianello and Haidê
Parcianello quota prefixing in 8,0 bags of soybeans per arable hectare; (iv) grant a new area of 1,078 arable hectares until June 30,
2022; (v) include terms and conditions concerning soy pickup logistics in Fazenda Serra Grande; and (vi) grant availability of Fazenda
Serra Grande structure for Brasilagro Companhia Brasileira de Propriedades Agrícolas field employees.
**Exhibit
      32.2**











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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Croff Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sarah
      Straughan, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)  This
      Report on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements
      of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  I
      further certify to the
      best of my knowledge that the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Croff Enterprises, Inc.







Date:
                    November 12, 2007
                By:
                /s/Sarah
                  StraughanSarah
                    Straughan,Chief Accounting Officer








*A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
#### William B. BRASWELL and Hester D. Braswell, his wife, Appellants, v. BLUE CROSS OF FLORIDA, INC. and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Florida corporations, Appellees.

No. 69-634.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 18, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 I, Gary W. Douglass,
Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of CPI Corp., a
Delaware Corporation, certify that: (1)
  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q
  of CPI Corp.;(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 officers 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
  supervisions, 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 evaluations;(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 officers 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
  registrants board of directors (or persons fulfilling 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.  /s/ Gary W. DouglassGary W. DouglassExecutive Vice President, Finance and Chief 
  Financial OfficerDate: June 10, 2004
Dawson, Michael
A

From: Dawson, Michael

Sent: Manday, Ocuber 29, 2001 3:27 PM
To: Adams, Tim

Subject: Pipoa

| called Pippa today :o make sure she was OK {t've 9¢en trying to call her every Monday but this is only the second time
I've called her). My vicw here is that it's better to find out where she’s headed than to wait until she gets thee.

She has the follew:ng issues:

A's Wants an update on the war bonds bill and where it is in the Serate. | told her the last | heard we were expecting
it to sai: through the Senate, possibly by unanimous consent, but that | would have Amy Smith to get back to her. {I've
asked Amy to do so).

2. Advises that the Enron situation ‘s squarely in Peter's lap. Let's ta.k about this.

3 Had heard tnat there was sone derivative legislation working its way through Congress and wanted to know more.
| said I'd get back lo her.

4. Warts ‘o tour FinCEN, | said I'd set it up for her.

5. Werts <0 know who s oversccing the imp ementation (through regulation} of the anti-money laundering Gill. Iwas
geing to suggest that Ken get a report on this from: Jimmy end Aufhauser. OK?

That's all,
Michaet

00100000000730
| 1.     | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and                                                          |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                        |
| 2.     | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of A.T. Cross Company. |

| Date:  November 12, 2010 | DAVID G. WHALEN         |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                               | David G. Whalen         |
|                               | Chief Executive Officer |
|                               |                    |
|                               |                    | KEVIN F. MAHONEY |
|                               | Kevin F. Mahoney        |
|                               | Chief Financial Officer |
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31777]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Management and Oversight of the National Estuarine Research 
Reserve System.
    Agency Form Number: None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0121.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement of a previously approved collection.
    Burden: 14,345 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 27 (43 responses per year).
    Avg. Hours Per Response: Ranges between 2 and 2,000 hours depending 
on the requirement.
    Needs and Uses: The National Estuarine Research Reserve System 
(NERRS) consists of carefully selected estuarine areas of the United 
States that are designated, preserved, and managed for research and 
educational purposes. Information from states is needed to review their 
proposals for site designations, to evaluate state requests for funding 
of the development of management plans and Environmental Impact 
Statements, and to ensure that the national standards continue to be 
met.
    Affected Public: State, local or tribal government.
    Frequency: On occasion, annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: November 28, 1997.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 97-31777 Filed 12-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-08-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 12, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

130810 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly In re Estate of JIHAD H. MOUKALLED, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Deceased. Stephen J. Markman,

_____________ _______________ ____________/ Justices

BRUCE BAKIAN, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 130810 COA: 257732 Oakland Probate: NATIONAL CITY BANK, Personal 01-276297-DA Representative of the Estate of JIHAD H. MOUKALLED, Deceased, Respondent, and

FIFTH THIRD BANK, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to a ppeal the February 16, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take ot her peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(l). At oral argument, the partie s shall address the following questions: (1) Under the facts of this case where the petitioner is s eeking priority over other creditors with respect to th e Heather Hills real estate, did the Court of Appeals appropriately invoke the doctrine of equitable lien to grant the petitio ner a security interest in that real property, and if not, by what method shou ld the petitioner have

secured an interest in the real property? (2) Was the "Secu rity Agreement" subject to the recording requirements found for example in MCL 565.201, and if so did it meet those requirements? (3) Does the fact that th e Register of Deeds accepted the "Security Agreement" for filing definitively prove compliance with a reco rding statute? The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should avoid submitting a mere restatement of the arguments made in their application

papers.

d0109 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 12, 2007

Clerk
No. 00-7565.

#### LaVenture *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-rari denied.
#### Ronald J. KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-318.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 2, 1971.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Milton E. McKay, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

*641Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rodney Durrance, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed on the authority of Parker v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 253.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, REED and MAGER, JJ., concur.