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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     2000 Textainer Equipment Income Fund II, 10K
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000853086
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund II, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,652
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                   219
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10
<PP&E>                                         44,088
<DEPRECIATION>                                 18,108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 29,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          796
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     28,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   29,763
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,772
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (130)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,566
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,566
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsCommentaries     Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians
        
            Commentaries
 Keyword
 Type Select a CategoryTop StoriesMission/TrainingFeaturesSecretary of the AFAF Chief of StaffChief Master Sgt. of the AFCommentariesSequestration NewsSpace/TechnologyHumanitarianAFSO 21Women's History Month 1-15EnvironmentalWarrior CareDiversityDignified TransferSafetyHeritageAir Force FamilyPersonnel MattersCommander's Call TopicsHaiti Earthquake ReliefDon't Ask Don't TellSuicide PreventionWarrior GamesEnergyAircraftEtchbergerSexual AssaultOperation TomodachiOperation Odyssey Dawn2011 Appropriations InformationHurricane Irene9/11AFAWeek in PhotosThrough Airmen's EyesThrough AIrmen's Eyes FeaturesThrough Their Words2012 Appropriations InformationAfrican American History MonthAfrican American Heritage Month 1-15African American Heritage Month 16-29Fiscal Year BudgetAir Force StoriesColorado WildfireChief of Staff ArchiveHurricane IsaacAFA 2012APP RSSAPP Airman VisualsExpeditionary OperationsHurricane SandyTransition GPSAir Force in SpaceSports/RecreationH1N1Women's History Month 16-30Oklahoma Tornado ReliefMemorial DayCOVID-19 CommentariesCOVID-19
 RecentOldestTitle A > ZTitle Z > A
 April 2, 2019Creating high performance through job satisfaction
        Do you like your job? Do your Airmen like their jobs? If you answered no, why? How you answer those questions can say a lot about your organization. Believe it or not, you can create a better workplace for your Airmen.  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0**

**- 1**  **7 54** 

WALLACE WAYNE BRADSHER, JR. ; PAMELA FOGLEMAN BRADSHER

,

P etitioner s

– Appell ant s ,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

,

Respondent

– Appell ee

.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. ( Tax Ct. No. 10S

- 6772 )

Submitted : November 30 , 2010 Decided: December 3, 2010

Before WILKINSON, K EENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judge s

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Wallace Wayne Bradsher, Jr., Pamela Foglem an Bradsher

, Appellant s Pro Se. John DiCicco, Richard Farber, John A. Nolet, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; William J. Wilkins, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C.; Johnny Craig Young, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Wallace Wayne Bradsher, Jr., and Pamela Fog l eman

Bradsher appeal from the tax court’s order dismissing, as

untimely filed, their petition for r edetermination of the

deficiency in their 2005 income taxes. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the tax court. See Bradsher v. Comm’r,

I nternal Rev. , Tax Ct. No. 10S

- 6772 (U.S. Tax Ct. May 18, 2010).

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
# L_2006159EN.01001401.xml

| 13.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 159/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 159/14

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 12 June 2006

appointing a German full member of the Committee of the Regions

(2006/408/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the German Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC (1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC (1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010.

| (2) | A seat as a full member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Jochen RIEBEL, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A seat as a full member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Jochen RIEBEL,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Volker HOFF, ‘Hessen Minister for Federal and European Affaires and Commissioner of the Land of Hessen to the Federation’, is hereby appointed a full member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr Jochen RIEBEL for the remainder of his term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 12 June 2006.

For the Council

The President

U. PLASSNIK

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Tsang, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J. at hearing, plea, and sentence), rendered October 18, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to five years probation, unanimously affirmed.

The record amply supports the hearing court’s credibility determinations and its finding that defendant, arriving at an illegal gambling house in Chinatown just after the execution of a search warrant had begun, lacked standing to controvert that warrant *(see, e.g., People v Rivera,*121 AD2d 166, *affd*68 NY2d 786). Additionally, as the Criminal Court hearing (Ira Globerman, J.) that ultimately determined the illegality of the search warrant utilized by the police to enter the premises involved different issues and parties, and as defendant’s specific claim was not brought before that court, the collateral estoppel doctrine may not properly be invoked by defendant *(see, e.g., People v McGriff,*130 AD2d 141).

This Court rejects defendant’s alternative argument that he was unlawfully stopped by a police officer stationed at the door of the illegal gambling house while other officers executed the search warrant inside the premises. The arresting officer’s testimony, fully credited by the hearing court, was that as security officer stationed at the door of the gambling house, he attempted to prevent defendant from entering the premises. In the circumstances, a stop and inquiry were authorized *(People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210). When defendant ignored the officer’s questioning as to his purpose at the premises, and then entered and shouted in Chinese at the occupants, the officer’s knowledge, gained through experience, that guns usually accompany illegal gambling house operations, justified the officer’s frisk of defendant *(People v De Bour, supra).*Therefore, the hearing court’s application of traditional search and seizure principles to deny defendant’s *174suppression motion is amply supported by the record *(People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
# C_2006242EN.01001701.xml

| 7.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/17

---

Commission Decision declaring that the measure notified by the Czech Republic, under the interim mechanism pursuant to Annex IV.3 of the Act of Accession, is not applicable after accession — State aids

(2006/C 242/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: The Czech Republic

Aid No: State aid No CZ 53/2003

Title: Banka Haná, a.s.

Objective: Aid to the banking sector

Other information: Commission decision declaring that the measures in favour of Banka Haná, a.s., notified by the Czech Republic under the interim mechanism pursuant to Annex IV.3 of the Accession Act, is not applicable after accession.

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: The Czech Republic

Aid No: State aid No CZ 54/03

Title: Foresbank, a.s.

Objective: Aid to the banking sector

Other information: Commission decision declaring that the measures in favour of Foresbank, a.s., notified by the Czech Republic under the interim mechanism pursuant to Annex IV.3 of the Accession Act, are not applicable after accession.

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
#### Robert J. Kaiser et al., Appellants, v J & S Realty, Inc., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), *921entered March 15, 1990 in Sullivan County, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it.

Plaintiffs commenced this action on April 15, 1988 by service of a summons and verified complaint upon the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306. By order dated June 17, 1988, Supreme Court granted a default judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Thereafter, defendant made an oral application to vacate the default judgment, apparently upon the ground that defendant was never served with the summons and complaint. Supreme Court granted the motion and plaintiffs appeal.

We reverse. While there appears to be no per se rule against oral motions *(see, Matter of Shanty Hollow Corp. v Poladian,*23 AD2d 132, 133-134, *affd*17 NY2d 536; Siegel, NY Prac § 243, at 363-364 [2d ed]), a movant must, nonetheless, present affidavits or other competent evidence in support of its factual assertions *(see, Matter of Shanty Hollow Corp. v Poladian, supra;*Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2214:22, at 98). Here, it appears that defendant made no evidentiary showing. In any event, the record on appeal, stipulated to by defendant, contains no affidavits, sworn testimony or other competent evidence in support of defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment. As such, Supreme Court’s determination may not be sustained *(see, Matter of Tirre v Bush Term. Co.,*172 App Div 386, 391-392; 4 NY Jur 2d, Appellate Review, § 322, at 414; 1 Newman, New York Appellate Practice § 5.04 [1], at 5-18—5-19).

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

109) ll-K- (B) -98 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:51 AM Sheet 109 of 325 
P.2 

/A\ Pl 

II-K-(B)-98 

INDUSTRIAL BOILER NSPS, COMPARISON OF NEW VS. OLD 

NOx CONTROL COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED N0X STANDARD 

Letter from K. Held, EEA to R. Short, EPArEAB 

January 18, 1983 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-98
| 1.     | The forgoing quarterly report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                  |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                               |
| 2.     | The information contained in the foregoing quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund. |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                               |

|   |   /s/ Kenneth E. Banwart            |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Kenneth E. Banwart, Managing Partner          |   |
|   | Aspen Partners, Ltd.                          |   |
|   | Managing Member of Aspen Diversified Fund LLC |   |

----
#### Paul Frank WOLVERTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-83-663.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 8, 1985.

*47Elaine Meek, Asst. Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Tomilou Gentry Liddell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, Paul Frank Wolverton, was convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-82-6011, of Robbery With Firearms, and was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, and he appeals.

Briefly stated, at approximately 1:30 a.m. on the morning of November 25, 1982, the eighteen-year-old appellant, who was armed with an unloaded automatic pistol and wearing a ski mask, entered the executive offices of the Hilton Inn Northwest in Oklahoma City and hid until a cocktail waitress from the hotel’s club, and later the security guard who came to check on her, entered the office in which he was waiting. Not being satisfied with the $501.00 which the waitress was carrying, which were receipts from drinks and tips, he allowed her to leave to obtain the club’s receipts, keeping the guard as a hostage and threatening to kill him if she did not return in five minutes. When she failed to return, he took the $501.00 and the guard and started to leave. Outside the office, he observed the police, who had been called by the club’s management, and he returned to the office where the guard overpowered him and called in the police who arrested him.

Appellant’s single assignment of error alleges improper comments by the prosecutor during closing arguments. He complains that the prosecutor told the jury the possible charges which could have been filed against the appellant, and stated that next to murder, armed robbery is the most serious crime in the statutes. The record shows that the appellant failed to object to any of the prosecutor’s comments and therefore they have not been preserved for review. See, *Langdell v. State,*657 P.2d 162 (Okl.Cr.1982). Furthermore, the remarks of the prosecutor were invited by the appellant’s closing statement, since the defense initially “opened the door” to the fact that possibly other crimes had been committed, but not robbery with firearms. A party may not complain of an error which he himself has invited, or which he has expressly or impliedly waived. *Cooper v. State,*671 P.2d 1168 (Okl.Cr.1983). Moreover, due to the overwhelming evidence of the appellant’s guilt and the leniency of the sentence imposed, which was only one year over the statutory minimum, the appellant has not shown any prejudice. This assignment of error is without merit.

The judgment and sentence appealed from is AFFIRMED.

PARKS, P.J., and BRETT, J., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7817

ROBERT LEE HARRIS, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Individually and in their Official Capacity under the Color of Law; KAREN WHITE, Regional Director; AL HAYNES, Warden of U.S.P. Hazelton; DUKE TERRELL, Warden of U.S.P. Leavenworth; A. W. JETT, Associate Warden of U.S.P. Leavenworth; G. DRENNAN, Hospital Administrator of U.S.P. Leavenworth; BOYLE, Hospital Administrator of U.S.P. Hazelton; MCCULLUM, Dr. - Clinical Director of U.S.P. Leavenworth; UNKNOWN PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT, Federal Bureau of Prisons Employee and is sued in his personal capacity; BILL CAREY, Lieutenant - Federal Bureau of Prisons Employee and is sued in his personal capacity; UNKNOWN FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS EMPLOYEE, and is sued in his personal capacity, Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cv-00058-REM-JSK)

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Robert Lee Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting his motion for an extension of time to file a response to the magistrate judge’s recommendation in his underlying action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of

the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Harris seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1827 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain polyresin magnets. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2009 

Mr. BAUCUS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain polyresin 

magnets. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POLYRESIN MAGNETS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Polyresin magnets, not festive 

(provided for in subheading 

8505.19.30) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1827 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF TRANSPRO, INC.

     The following sets forth a list of all the direct and indirect subsidiaries
as of December 31,2000 of TransPro, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), and the State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization
of each.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                      NAME                                   JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION OR
                      ----                                             ORGANIZATION
                                                                       ------------
<S>                                                          <C>
          Allen Heat Transfer Products, Inc.                             Delaware
          CROWN CREW CAB, INC.                                           Delaware
          GO/DAN Industries, Inc.                                        Delaware
          GO/DAN de Mexico, SA de C.V.                                    Mexico
          Radiadores GDI, SA de C.V.                                      Mexico
          TransPro Indus Ltd.                                            Mauritius
          EVAP, Incorporated                                               Texas
</TABLE>