alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William R. THOMPSON, in his official capacity as Executive Manager of Guam Airport Authority, Defendant-Appellee. The Attorney General of Guam, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William R. Thompson, in his official capacity as Executive Manager of Guam Airport Authority, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 03-15823, 03-15999.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 2, 2006.

*1030Douglas Moylan, Esq., Eric A. Heisel, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert M. Weinberg, Esq., David A. Mair, Esq., Mair, Mair, Space & Thompson, P.C., Hagatna, GU, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before DOROTHY W. NELSON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, and CARLOS T. BRA, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Subsequent to the issuance of our opinion affirming the district court’s dismissal of the Attorney General of Guam’s action, but prior to the our consideration of his petition for rehearing, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to review the final decision of the Guam Supreme Court in *A.B. Won Pat Guam International Airport Authority v. Moylan,*2005 WL 291577 (Guam Terr.,2005). *Moylan v. A.B. Won Pat Guam International Airport Authority,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 338, 163 L.Ed.2d 50 (2005). The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari concluded the litigation in the Guam courts that was parallel to this federal action. The district court’s decision to abstain and to dismiss this federal action was based on that pending action in the Guam courts. This appeal is from that decision.

We are of the opinion that the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in *Moylan v. A B. Won Pat Guam International Airport Authority*moots the underlying litigation. The underlying questions concerning the interpretation of the 1998 Amendment to the Guam Organic Act have been resolved. Accordingly, as a matter of prudence, we hereby withdraw our August 16, 2005 opinion, vacate the district court’s April 1, 2003 decision dismissing the Attorney General’s action, and remand the case to the district court to dismiss the action as moot.

The pending petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc are denied without prejudice to the filing of a petition for rehearing from this order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 22, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 22, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0348. BRANNON RICE HICKS, SR. v. HENRY JOSEPH HICKS, II, et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

13CV60049
Exhibit 32.2

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 POW! Entertainment,
Inc. on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, in her capacity as an officer of the Company, that:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results
of operations of the Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|                      |  |     |  |                                    
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2012 |  | By: |  | /s/ Bick Le                        
|                      |  |     |  | Bick Le Principal Financial Officer
27

Appendix C: GPRA Annual Performance Plan/Report and Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Metrics  

FY 2007 GPRA  

PART PERFORMANCE GOALS  Outputs & Outcomes 

Target Actual 

FY 2008 Target 

FY 2009 Target 

Projects  Finance Projects  95 99 98 100 

   Insurance Projects  95 91 98 100 

Sub-Projects6  Investment Fund Sub-Projects n/a 71 n/a 100 

   Finance Sub-Projects n/a 77 n/a 100 

Development Effects   Development Matrix score  (Unweighted Average) 

Average Projects & Sub-Projects n/a 87 n/a 100 

SBC Cycle Time Insurance 70 57 70 70 

   Finance 75 55 70 70 

Efficiency 

Operate in a businesslike manner.  Improvement Action: 

Application Integration Migration (AIM Phases I and II) will improve support of integrated business processes and internal controls by replacing legacy systems / technology. 

 Internal Controls COOP 

Phase I AIM  Phase I AIM Phase II AIM  

Maintain or improve monitoring tempo of existing deals for issues which would affect OPIC’s development mission and risk of repayment. Mitigate risk through sound portfolio management, project development practices, and incentives to encourage good corporate citizenship. 

Ensure self-monitoring on all active projects.  Site monitor sensitive projects no later than 3rd year of operation. 

Risk Mitigation and Corporate Citizenship   

% of on-going OPIC Projects monitored for compliance with OPIC’s U.S. effects, environmental, and worker rights standards. 

100% 89% 100% 100% 

Additionality   

Ensure additionality and private sector participation to ensure that OPIC leverages, but does not compete with, the private sector. 

Refine Framework for financial transactions. 

Policy priority sectors 

(See FY 2009 Budget narrative) West-Bank Gaza Housing Cen America Microfinance 

Renewable Energy  Trade Capacity

Small Business  

Ensure that OPIC support is provided to small U.S. businesses. Increase Outreach to SMEs; Especially those owned by women and minorities. 

Implementation of EDN concept 

Expand Outreach  

                                                 6 Sub-Projects are investments or loans made under an OPIC facility and evaluated by OPIC.  FY 2007 is the first year of data collection and reporting for sub-projects.  As a result, the depth of available information is still maturing.  Scores are indicative of development impact, but OPIC expects that this population will, in time, progress to a level on par with OPIC’s other projects.   

    -       - allan.villabroza@opic.com
      - 2008-02-26T13:29:51-0500
      - Washington DC
      - Allan Villabroza
----

Action brought on 11 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Parthenon A.E.

(Case T-7/05)

(2005/C 57/66)

Language of the Case: Greek

An action against Parthenon – Anonimos Etairia Ikodomikon – Touristikon – Viomikhanikon – Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios Triantafillou, Legal Adviser, assisted by Nikolaos Korogiannakis, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Community, represented by the European Commission, concluded with the defendant, as coordinator and member of a joint venture, a contract that formed part of implementation of the provisions of the specific programme of ‘research, technological development and demonstration in the field of agriculture and fisheries’. More specifically, the contract was concerned with the carrying out of a project entitled ‘development of a new process in fruit cleansing and peeling’ and was to be performed within a period of 24 months from 1 September 1998. Under the contract the Commission entered into the obligation to make a financial contribution towards the proper execution of the project amounting to 50 % of the allowable costs, the maximum contribution being ECU 433 000.

Since the work had not been completed on the prescribed date (31 August 2000) and the defendant had not lodged a scientific report and a cost statement, as stipulated by the contract, the Commission decided to terminate the contract with effect from 24 February 2001. The subsequent correspondence between the defendant and the Commission did not, in the Commission's view, reveal new matters which could alter the content of the Commission's decision.

By its action, the Commission seeks reimbursement of the sum of EUR 259 800, which it paid to the defendant as an advance in respect of its financial contribution to the performance of the work, and payment of the interest due on that sum, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Greek law which is applicable under the contract.

----
# C_2015367EN.01000102.xml

| 5.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/1

---

CLEAN SKY 2 JOINT UNDERTAKING

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2014

(2015/C 367/02)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.cleansky.eu/content/homepage/reference-documents

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN
THE COMPANY'S 10-K FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,595,078
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,993,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                   829,033
<INVENTORY>                                 30,492,779
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            70,748,357
<PP&E>                                      12,571,275
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,251,053
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             133,160,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,213,685
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    65,384,516
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,629,247
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               133,160,257
<SALES>                                    128,188,773
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           128,188,773
<CGS>                                       61,173,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              112,452,685
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               318,721
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             450,962
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,590,679
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,688,072
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,902,607
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,902,607
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66


</TABLE>
251 La. 1031

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Howard FUNK.

No. 49166.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1968.

In re: Howard Funk applying for writs of certiorari (review), prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order.

The application is denied. This court will not interfere with the orderly procedure in the trial of cases save and except when the ruling complained of is palpably erroneous, and then only if irreparable injury will ensue. Defendant has an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of conviction.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Denali Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov","author_name":"denaliadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/author\/denaliadmin\/","title":"AFN 2019","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"mUz6E3Qm3q\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/afn-2019\/\">AFN 2019<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/afn-2019\/embed\/#?secret=mUz6E3Qm3q\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“AFN 2019” — Denali Commission\" data-secret=\"mUz6E3Qm3q\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/20191018_133631.jpg","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":539}
#### Carl Gifaldi et al., Appellants, v Dumont Co., Inc., Doing Business as Dumont Chemical Company, et al., Defendants, Jefferson Chemical Company et al., Respondents, and Interstate Tire Company, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 988; *Chase Manhattan Bank v Roberts & Roberts,*63 AD2d 566, 567). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.
PRK-EX10.1-2013.12.31-10K






Exhibit 10.1




Summary of Base Salaries
for
Executive Officers of Park National Corporation


On December 18, 2013, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Park National Corporation (“Park”) approved the base salaries for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2014, for each of the executive officers of Park:  (a) C. Daniel DeLawder, Chairman of the Board of Park and Chairman of the Board and full-time executive officer of The Park National Bank, a subsidiary of Park; (b) David L. Trautman, Chief Executive Officer and President of each of Park and The Park National Bank; and (c) Brady T. Burt, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of Park and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Park National Bank.  Those base salaries are:
*  David L. Trautman -- $775,000
*  C. Daniel DeLawder -- $563,250
*  Brady T. Burt -- $325,000
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  March      10, 2010  |   |                                                      |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                        |   |                                                      |   |
|                                        |   | /s/      William G. Miller                                |   |
|                                        |   | William      G. Miller                                    |   |
|                                        |   | Chairman      of the Board and Co-Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                        |   |                                                      |   |
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Richard Peteka, Chief Financial Officer of
Solar Senior Capital Ltd., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Solar Senior Capital Ltd.;

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 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 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.

Dated this 1stday of November, 2012



|                        
|------------------------
|                        
|/S/    RICHARD L.
PETEKA
|Richard L. Peteka
Page 3 of 5 Effects Division) to Jackson, S., (Regis tration Division) and, Redden, J. (Health and Effects Division). Dated October 20, 2008.

USEPA 2003. Memorandum: Quinoxyfen-Health Effects Division (HED) Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC) Decision Document. From Kramer, G., and Sutton, C. (Environmental Fate and Effects Division) to Donovan, Y. (Health Effects Division) March 26, 2003.Page 4 of 5 Appendix I

Tier 1 groundwater estimated drinking water concentratio ns (EDWCs) for quinoxyfen, resulting from its use on cherries were de rived with PRZM-GW (P esticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater, version 1.0, August 31, 2012). PRZM-GW is a one-dimensional, finite-difference model that estimates the con centrations of pesticid es in groundwater. It accounts for pesticide fate in the crop root zone by simulating pesticide transport and degradation through the soil profile after a pesticide is applie d to an agricultural field. PRZM-GW was used for up to 100 years of quinoxyfen application in three standard scenarios: NC cotton, WI corn and FL potato. Each scenario was representing a different region known to be vulnerable to groundwater contaminations. The input parameters are found in Table 1 . PRZM-GW output values represent pesticide concentrations in a vulnerable groundwater supply that is located directly beneat h a rural agricultural field ( Table 2 ). The results show the peak values in NC cotton and FL potato scenarios but not in the WI corn scenario. In addition, because if the high K oc of the chemical the breakthrough was not observed. Therefore, EFED recommends using EDWCs from SCIGROW.

Table 1. PRZM-GW Input Parameters Parameter (units) Input Value Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) 0.114 Number of Applications 5 Applications Date(s) (month-day) 4-30; 5-7; 5-1; 5-21; 5-28 Annual Application Retreatment Once every year Hydrolysis 0 Soil Metabolism Half-life (days) 400 (90 th percentile) K oc (mL/g oc ) 47513.1 (average)

Table 2. PRZM-GW Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations in Groundwater Resulting from the Use of Quinoxyfen.

Crop/Scenario Highest daily Value (μg/L) Post Breakthrough Average (μg/L) Average Simulation Breakthrough

Time (days) NC cotton 5.41 x10 -13 Incomplete Incomplete

WI corn 0 Incomplete Incomplete
FL Potato 1.09 x10 -7 Incomplete IncompletePage 5 of 5 Attachment I and II

Drinking Water Assessment (DP 351023)

055459 D351023 DWA 2008

MARC memo 2003

MARC memo 2003