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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE
SIX-MONTH PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                         233,016
<SECURITIES>                                   549,267
<RECEIVABLES>                                  530,149<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,677
<INVENTORY>                                    315,459<F2>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,689,943
<PP&E>                                         710,990
<DEPRECIATION>                                 326,857
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,425,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          633,522
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,653
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,708,942
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,425,671
<SALES>                                      1,253,792
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,253,792
<CGS>                                          639,712
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  639,712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               388,605
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,171
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                949,807
<INCOME-TAX>                                   344,611
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            605,196
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   605,196
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.90
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNT IS NET OF ALLOWANCE FOR BAD DEBT AND RETURNS
<F2>AMOUNT IS NET OF OBSOLESCENCE RESERVES
</FN>


</TABLE>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AIR AMBULANCE BY AIR TREK, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-1003 

RONNIE A. YODER 

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

JOINT AGREED PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER 

Pursuant to Rule !3.217 (14 C.P.R. !3.217), and by Order of Chief Administrative Law 

Judge Establishing Procedures served on January !3, 2012, the parties, by and through 

undersigned counsel, hereby submit the following joint agreed proposed procedural schedule: 

(a) 

1. Stipulations - Stipulations, by and between the parties, shall be filed on or 

before June 15, 2012. 

ii. List of witnesses and a summary oftheir proposed testimony- a list of 

witnesses and a summary of their proposed testimony shall be exchanged 

on or before May 15, 2012. 

(b) Exchanging exhibits and discovery - Exchange of exhibits to be introduced at the 

hearing; a list of witnesses that may be called at the hearing; and all other discovery shall 

be completed no later than April13, 2012. 
STATEMENT CONCERNING THE STATUS OF SETTLEMENT EFFORTS 

The parties will continue to discuss settlement as discovery continues. 

PROPOSED HEARING SITE 

The parties propose that a hearing shall take place in Washington, D.C. 

PROPOSED HEARING DATE 

The parties propose a two-day hearing on or after Ju !7, 2012. 

Dated: February 13, 2012 

S. WINTON, ESQ. 

ATION LAW FIRM 

ne Research Court, Suite 450 

, ockville, MD 20850 

Tel: (30!) 294-8550 

Fax: (30!) 294-2525 

Greg · tionLawExperts.com 

C ns Jar Respondent 

STEPHEN W. BRICE, ESQ. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

FAA Eastern Region, AEA-7 

I Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY !1434 

Tel: 7!8 553-3268 

Fax: 7!8 533-5699 

2 
Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 

ONE COPY 

GREGORY S. WINTON, Respondent's Counsel 

THE AVIATION LAW FIRM 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

TEL: (301) 294-8550 

FAX: (301) 294-2525 

STEPHEN W. BRICE, ESQ., Complainant's Counsel 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

FAA Eastern Region, AEA-7 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Tel: 718 553-3268 

Fax: 718 533-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202 366-2142 

FAX: 202 366-7536 

3
# C_2014378EN.01000501.xml

| 24.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/5

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2014/C 378/05

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 26.9.2014 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 26.9.2014-31.12.2014 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or Group of stocks | HAD/5BC6A |
| Species | Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) |
| Zone | Union and international waters of Vb and VIa |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 58/TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

26.9.2014

Duration

26.9.2014-31.12.2014

Member State

Spain

Stock or Group of stocks

HAD/5BC6A

Species

Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)

Melanogrammus aeglefinus

Zone

Union and international waters of Vb and VIa

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

58/TQ43

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
#### Roger E. SCHMIDT, a minor, by his father and next friend, Richard E. Schmidt, and Richard E. Schmidt, individually, Appellants, v. The CITY OF WINTER PARK, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. Roger E. SCHMIDT, a minor, by his father and next friend, Richard E. Schmidt, and Richard E. Schmidt, individually, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 922, 1497.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 11, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension  Partners  1995-A,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of  operations
contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,390
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  18,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,749
<PP&E>                                         3,448,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,492,631)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 975,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          120,167
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     855,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   975,502
<SALES>                                        19,574
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19,580
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16,616<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,715)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,715)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,715)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2502

___________ Phillip Davis, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * David Dormire, et al., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: September 7, 2001 Filed: September 20, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Phillip Davis, a Missouri inmate, was charged with several rule violations, including assault, arson, and possessing an intoxicating substance. He was found guilty on each of these charges and received time in administrative segregation. He grieved the decisions but did not receive rulings on all of his grievances. He also was placed in a strip cell on two occasions. Based on these allegations, Davis brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various prison officials, alleging violations of his First,1 The HONORABLE SCOTT O. WRIGHT, United States District Judge for the

We stern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the HONORABLE WILLIAM A. KNOX, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
-2- Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court 1 dismissed Davis’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Davis appeals. Upon careful de novo review of the record, we affirm.
Davis’s allegations do not establish (1) that his transfer to administrative segregation “impose[d] atypical and significant hardship on [Davis] in relation to the ordinary incidents of

prison life” as is required to trigger due process protection, see Sandin v. Connor , 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); (2) that prison officials knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Davis’s health and safety from his stays in the strip cell, see Williams v. Delo , 49 F.3d 442, 445 (8th Cir. 1995); or (3) that any failure to process his grievances actually prejudiced him, see Farver v. Vilches , 155 F.3d 978, 979-80 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Davis’s motion for appointment of counsel. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleasesCensus 2000

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB01-CN.81**
**Contact:**  Public Information Office						301-457-3691/301-457-3620 (fax)301-457-1037 (TDD)e-mail: 2000usa@census.govStatistical Information StaffPopulation Division301-457-2422e-mail: pop@census.gov

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  EMBARGOED UNTIL: 12:01 A.M. EDT, MAY 17, 2001 (THURSDAY)

## Census Bureau Releases Census 2000 Demographic Profile for Indiana

The U.S. Census Bureau today released the *Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: Census 2000* for Indiana, a one-page table providing Census 2000 data on age and sex distribution, race, Hispanic origin, household relationship and type, housing occupancy and tenure (whether the housing occupant owns or rents).

 The profile includes nearly 100 data items in all, plus percentage distributions.

In addition to the profile of the state as a whole, similar demographic profiles for counties, places and other geographic components of the state can be accessed on an embargoed basis at <https://www.census.gov/dcmd/www/embargo/embargo_demoprofile.html>. After the release time, go to the Census Bureau's online search-and-retrieval database *American FactFinder*  <http://factfinder2.census.gov> or to its Demographic Profile Page <https://www.census.gov/census2000/demoprofile.html>. You will also be able to download the profiles from the bureau's file transfer protocol site <http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/demographic_profile/>.

For information about how to order paper copies of Census 2000 demographic profiles, contact Customer Services Center, U.S. Census Bureau, 301-457-4100; or e-mail:<webmaster@census.gov>. 

 For local context, contact the Indiana State Data Center, 317-232-3733; e-mail: <rbrooker@statelib.lib.in.us>.

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
#### In the Matter of Leonard Belford, Petitioner, against Board of Elections of Nassau County, Respondent, and Louis R. Glantz, Intervener, Respondent.*

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

October 20, 1953.

*Leonard Belford,*petitioner in person.

*G. Bur chard Smith, County Attorney (Francis Donovan*of counsel), for respondent.

*Vogel, Vogel & Fremont*for intervener, respondent.

*

 Affd. without opinion 282 App. Div. 891, affd. 306 N. Y. 70.

Pette, J.

In this proceeding under section 330 of the Election Law, petitioner, the candidate of the Clean Government party for the position of City Court Judge of the City of Long Beach, seeks to have the arrangement of the voting machine format, proposed to be used by the Board of Elections, altered, so that his opponent will not appear on the ballot on a separate line of the United City party, another independent body.

It is said that section 248 of the Election Law requires such a revision. It is fair to say that a literal reading of the section could lead to such a result.

Judge Glantz is the candidate of the Republican, Democratic and Liberal parties and so appears on the proposed ballot on a separate line under each emblem. But he was also nominated by the petition of 1,742 independent voters in a city where the total vote is less than 8,000. This is a substantial group, who should not be compelled to vote for their candidate under *859some other emblem, to which they might have objection. It is a mere happenstance that this independent body did not file in time to have their full slate on the ballot.

The construction of section 248 contended for by the petitioner certainly seems to discriminate against an independent body vis-a-vis an established party and, as so interpreted, would raise serious doubt as to its constitutionality *(Matter of Aurelio [Cohen],*291 N. Y. 176).

A somewhat similar application was decided adversely to the contention of the petitioner in *Matter of Smyth*v. *Westchester Co. Bd. of Elections*(198 Misc. 604), although in that case the petitioner was not the candidate of all major parties and thus, that case is not on all fours with the instant case.

A different question might be presented where so many independent listings were proposed that they might cause confusion and perhaps interfere with an orderly expression of the voters will.

But that is not the case here. The facsimile of the proposed ballot which has been submitted to the court should give rise to no confusion or difficulty, and accordingly, the decision of the Board of Elections is left undisturbed.

Petition denied. Submit order.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3008

To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to require plans for achieving

self-support to include a career or housing goal.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1993

Mr. STARK (for himself and Mr. RAMSTAD) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to require

plans for achieving self-support to include a career or

housing goal.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF SELF-SUPPORT PLANS TO IN4 CLUDE HOUSING GOALS.

5 Section 1612(b)(4) of the Social Security Act (42

6 U.S.C. 1382a(b)(4)) is amended in each of subparagraphs

7 (A)(iii) and (B)(iv), by inserting ‘‘, containing a career

8 or housing goal, that has been’’ before ‘‘approved’’ and

9 section 1613(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
2

•HR 3008 IH

1 13826(a)(4)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, containing a ca2 reer or housing goal, that has been’’ before ‘‘approved’’.

Æ
[J

- 29

- 2018 ]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

,

Appellee

v.

HOWARD WILLIAM DEWEESE

,

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 69 MAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the Superior
Court at No. 1998 MDA 2016 dated 5/8/17, affirming in part and vacating in part the PCRA order of Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, at No. CP

- 22

- CR

- 0003531

- 2010 dated 11/8/16 and remanding for resentencing

Submitted: March 2, 2018

ORDER

PER C URIAM DECIDED: June 1, 2018

AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 201 8 , this appeal is dismissed as having been

improvidently granted.
# C_2012162EN.01000101.xml

| 8.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6305 — DFDS/C.RO Ports/Älvsborg)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 162/01

On 2 April 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6305. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6305. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
256 La. 886

#### GARDEN DISTRICT ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Through the Honorable Victor H. Schiro, Mayor, the Department of Safety and Permits, Through the Honorable Albert G. Wyler, Director, and, the Board of Zoning Adjustments, Through the Honorable Claude J. Kelly, Chairman and Messrs. Calvin J. Ferran, William C. Osborne, Jr., C. E. Simmons and David A. Kraus.

No. 50868.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 7, 1970.

In re: Garden District Association applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 238 So.2d 267.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 1258 Directorate Identifier: 2011

-NM

- 184

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed c ell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost T otal Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet

Inspect 2.5 $ 212.50 $0 $ 212.50 232 $49,300.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $49,300 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

Rework 1.0 $ 85.00 $8 $ 93.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility A ct:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO

* 

### Explanation :
Exhibit 32.2

Statement of Principal Accounting Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, I, Stephen Feldschuh,
certify that:

      1. The annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 of
      Daxor Corporation fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a 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: April 15, 2005


      /s/ Stephen Feldschuh
      ---------------------
      Stephen Feldschuh
      Vice President of Operations and
      Principal Accounting Officer