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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,182,651
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     329,715,853
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,323,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             322,870,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   276,269,539
<OTHER-SE>                                (21,699,834)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               322,870,574
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,352,955
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               43,386,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,432,782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,169,849)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,169,849)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,169,849)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### State v. Wong

21194

1/15/99

Vacated in part, Affirmed in part & Remanded
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 755 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 755

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to observe a moment 
of silence in the House on the first legislative day of each month for 
     those killed or wounded in United States engagements in Iraq, 
 Afghanistan, and other countries where Americans are serving in harms 
                                  way.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2016

Mr. Jones submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to observe a moment 
of silence in the House on the first legislative day of each month for 
     those killed or wounded in United States engagements in Iraq, 
 Afghanistan, and other countries where Americans are serving in harms 
                                  way.

    Resolved, That rule XIV of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
    ``7. On the first legislative day of each month on which there is a 
record vote on any bill or joint resolution, immediately after that 
vote, a moment of silence shall be observed on behalf of those killed 
or wounded (as well as their families) in current United States 
engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries where Americans 
are serving in harms way. There is no more sacred duty than to honor 
those who pay the ultimate sacrifice, so the moment of silence shall be 
led by the Speaker of the House or his designee.''.
                                 <all>
```
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

NAHMS Beef Cow-Calf Studies

Last Modified: 

Print

NAHMS conducted a beef cow-calf study in 2017 –18. This was the fourth NAHMS

study on the U.S. cow-calf industry. 

The study involved producers in 24 States representing more than 70 percent of

beef cows and beef cow operations in the United States. The study included two

questionnaires that asked producers about the health and management of their
cattle.

Beef 2017 Report 1 is based on the first study questionnaire administered. Beef

2017 Report 2 is based on the second questionnaire administered. NAHMS

conducted additional beef cow-calf studies in 2007 –08, 1997, and 1993.

See the complete list of all NAHMS studies and related materials

Loading...

Beef Cow-Calf Studies
# Monthly_Report

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/lab_info_services/downloads/ApprovedLabs_EIA.pdfhttps://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/lab_info_services/downloads/ApprovedLabs_EIA.pdf

# Form_Instructions

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/lab_info_services/downloads/ApprovedLabs_EIA.pdfmailto:equine.health@usda.govhttps://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/lab_info_services/downloads/ApprovedLabs_EIA.pdf
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Belden & Blake Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the knowledge of the
undersigned:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and  2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date:November 12, 2010 By: /s/ Mark A. Houser

Mark A. Houser, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Director This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q and shall not be treated as having been filed as part of the Form 10-Q.  3
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 860 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 860

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 
firefight that occurred on March 4, 2007, between members of the United 
 States Marine Corps and enemy forces in Bati Kot District, Nangarhar 
                         Province, Afghanistan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2016

Mr. Jones submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 
firefight that occurred on March 4, 2007, between members of the United 
 States Marine Corps and enemy forces in Bati Kot District, Nangarhar 
                         Province, Afghanistan.

Whereas, during the morning of March 4, 2007, 30 Marines of Fox Company, Marine 
        Special Operations Command, on patrol in Bati Kot District, Nangarhar 
        Province, Afghanistan, were attacked in a complex ambush by enemy 
        forces;
Whereas the Marines of Fox Company responded to the attack with proportionate 
        defensive fire in accordance with the existing Rules of Engagement;
Whereas, in their response to the ambush, the Marines of Fox Company did not 
        engage in the intentional or indiscriminate killing of any civilians;
Whereas, as commander of Theater Special Operations forces, Lieutenant General 
        Frank Kearney prematurely decided to expel the entire Marine Special 
        Operations Company from Afghanistan notwithstanding their appropriate 
        response to an attack by the enemy;
Whereas General Kearney skewed public perception regarding the incident with his 
        statements, which led to an Inspector General investigation into his 
        actions;
Whereas, not only was the response by General Kearney unprecedented, but none of 
        the investigations that have been completed would warrant such action, 
        and General Kearney's decision damaged the development of the Marine 
        Special Operations Command and the personal livelihood of these Marines; 
        and
Whereas the Marines conduct during the complex ambush was exemplary and 
        reflected the high standards to which they were trained: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps should issue a public 
document certifying that members of Fox Company of the Marine Special 
Operations Command were not at fault in the firefight that occurred on 
March 4, 2007, between members of Fox Company and enemy forces in Bati 
Kot District, Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan, and the Marines of Fox 
Company involved in this incident deserve to have their names cleared.
                                 <all>
```
[Cite as State v. Lynch, 134 Ohio St.3d 561, 2012-Ohio-5730.] 

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LYNCH, APPELLANT. 

[Cite as State v. Lynch, 134 Ohio St.3d 561, 2012-Ohio-5730.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of State v. Billiter.

(No. 2012-1361—Submitted December 4, 2012—Decided December 6, 2012.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, 

No. 11CA010031, 2012-Ohio-2975. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of 

State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103, 2012-Ohio-5144, 980 N.E.2d 960, and the 

cause is remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with 

this court’s opinion in State v. Billiter. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, 

JJ., concur. 

LUNDBERG STRATTON and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in 

their separate opinions in State v. Billiter. 

__________________ 

Dennis P. Will, Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney, and Billie Jo 

Belcher, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and E. Kelly Mihocik, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant. 

______________________
#### Maddox v. The Acting Administrative Director of the Courts

17505

10/17/94

Reversed
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERARDO ANTONIO FUENTES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72557

Agency No. A088-735-504

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Gerardo Antonio Fuentes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se

for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his

applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against

Torture.

FILED

MAR 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72557

Fuentes contends that he was persecuted by street gangs when he refused to

join their organization, and alleges that the gangs are still actively looking for him. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the beatings and harassment

that Fuentes received from gang members seeking to recruit him did not establish

past persecution on account of a protected ground, or a well-founded fear of future

persecution. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir. 2009)

(holding that young men who resist gang recruitment do not constitute a particular

social group, and refusal to join a gang does not amount to a political opinion).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because

Fuentes has not established it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or

with the acquiescence of the Honduran government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524

F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# C_2018427EN.01000901.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 August 2018 — GN, represented by the father HM v ZU, acting as administrator in the insolvency of Niki Luftfahrt GmbH

(Case C-532/18)

(2018/C 427/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GN, represented by the father HM

Defendant: ZU, acting as administrator in the insolvency of Niki Luftfahrt GmbH

Questions referred

Where a cup of hot coffee, which is located on the shelf of the seat in front of a person in an aircraft in flight, for unknown reasons slides and tips over, causing a passenger to suffer scalding, does this constitute an ‘accident’ triggering a carrier’s liability within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed on 9 December 1999 by the European Community on the basis of Article 300(2) EC and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2001/539/EC (1) of 5 April 2001 (Montreal Convention, MC)?

---

(1)  Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000880114
<NAME> BELDEN & BLAKE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          12,704
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,651
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,541
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,130
<PP&E>                                         585,472
<DEPRECIATION>                                 266,662
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 391,143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,343
<BONDS>                                        353,604
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,023
<OTHER-SE>                                    (43,371)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   391,143
<SALES>                                         67,352
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,564
<CGS>                                           39,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,870
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,989
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,449)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,438)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,011)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,011)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2019213EN.01000201.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/2

---

Appeal brought on 7 December 2018 by Michal Harvilik — HYDRA against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2018 in Case T-365/18, Michal Harvilik — HYDRA v Czech Republic and the European Court of Human Rights

(Case C-768/18 P)

(2019/C 213/02)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Appellant: Michal Harvilik — HYDRA (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Czech Republic, European Court of Human Rights

By order of 19 March 2019, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) ruled that the present appeal is inadmissible.

---
From: McKaughan, Colleen

Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:27:23 AM

To: ebakken@tep.com; jyockey@tep.com

Cc: Nudd, Gregory; Webb, Thomas; Chen, Eugene; Kelly, Shaheerah; GLASS, GEOFFREY; 

ecm@azdeq.gov

Subject: New Court-Ordered Deadline for Regional Haze FIP

Dear Erik and Jeff,

I’m writing to let you know that the court-ordered deadline for EPA to propose a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing regional haze in Arizona has been extended to September 

6, 2013. Our deadline for final action on Arizona’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) remains July 

15, 2013. The deadline for commenting on our December 20, 2012 proposed action on 

Arizona’s SIP is March 6, 2013. 

If EPA finalizes disapproval of any aspect of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, we are obligated to 

propose and later finalize a FIP to address these disapproved portions. The deadlines for these 

proposed and final actions are set in a consent decree. The parties to the consent decree 

recently agreed to extend these deadlines and the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia issued an order granting a motion to amend the consent decree to reflect these new 

deadlines. The new deadlines of September 6, 2013 for the proposed action and February 6, 

2014 for the final action provide the agency more time for the technical work that will form the 

basis of the FIP. 

If you are planning to provide technical information that you think would be helpful to EPA in 

preparing our FIP proposal, please provide that information no later than May 10, 2013. This 

will allow us enough time to review and consider the information in preparing the proposal.

In the case of Unit 4 at the H. Wilson Sundt Generating Station, we invite you to provide your 

own five-factor Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) analysis for nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). In addition, please include any additional 

information regarding the historical or anticipated future operation of the Sundt Generating 

Station (such as coal type, coal use, dispatch priority, capacity factor, etc) that you consider 

relevant to our technical work.

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to let me know. We look forward to hearing from you 

soon.

Colleen McKaughan
# Gulfstream

A GENERAL DVNAMICS COMPANY April 2,2012 A&C-12-227 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Requestfor Exemption from Section 25.901(c) ofTitle 14, Powerplant, Installation, for Conditions ofUncontrollable High Engine Thrust FAA Project No.: TC8700AT-T Attachment: Petition for Exemption - Uncontrollable HighThrust Failure Conditions, Model GVI Dear Sirs: In accordance with 14 CFR Part 11, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation requests consideration ofthe enclosed petition for exemption

. This petition is being submitted to relieve the Gulfstream GVI model aircraft from full compliance with 14 CFR 25.901(c) at amendment 46, Powerplant, Installation, to account for a potential failure that would result in an uncontrollable high thrust condition in avery limited portion ofthe flight envelope forthe GVI aircraft. Ifyou have anyquestions or require anyadditional information please contact me via the contact information listed belowor Natalie Mault at 912-965-5466. Sincerely,

Robert Glasscock Certification Director, G650 Program Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation P.O. Box 2206, 

### MIS R-03 Savannah, GA 31402-2206 robert.glasscock@gulfstream.com (912) 965-6817
cc: N. Berrryman, ACE-102A (via email) P. Hatton, EASA (via email) M. Gordon, ANM-113 (via email)

P.O. Box 2206 • Savannah. GA 31402-2206 USA. Telephone (912) 965-3000 • gulfstream.com
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                                 Zix Corporation
                                 Subsidiary List

Anacom Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation (inactive)

Anacom Communications, Inc., a Texas corporation (inactive)

MyDocOnline, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Petabyte Corporation, a Delaware corporation (inactive)

PocketScript, Inc., an Ohio corporation

Zix SCM, Inc., a Delaware corporation

ZixCorp Canada, Inc., a Canadian corporation

ZixIt.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation

ZixIt Management Services Corporation, a Delaware corporation (payroll entity)

ZixMail.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation

ZixMail Technology Company, a Delaware corporation
#### State v. Draizen

20344

9/29/98

Affirmed