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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
registrant's  unaudited  consolidated  financial  statements as of September 30,
1998,  and the nine months  then  ended,  and is  qualified  in its  entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               2,869
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      148,768
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   151,637
<PP&E>                                           1,568,772
<DEPRECIATION>                                      64,969
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,655,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              148,153
<BONDS>                                            802,381
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               277
<OTHER-SE>                                         704,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,655,440
<SALES>                                            156,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   160,653
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       82,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       235 <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  32,105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     45,734
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 45,734
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        45,734
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.64
        
<FN>
Included in other expenses are minority interest expense and interest income
</FN>

</TABLE>
## Theodore Roosevelt NP - Worst - Total Extinction Theodore Roosevelt NP - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N T o t a l Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction THRO1 NIA 2000 21 62.43 THRO1 NIA 2000 21 16.4 THRO1 NIA 2001 22 62.37 THRO1 NIA 2001 22 18.77 THRO1 NIA 2002 19 57.06 THRO1 NIA 2002 19 20.83 THRO1 NIA 2003 21 65.18 THRO1 NIA 2003 21 17.7 THRO1 NIA 2004 23 61.07 THRO1 NIA 2004 23 13.96 

## 308.11 Total 87.66 Total 61.622 Average 17.532 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 28%
Theodore Roosevelt NP - Best - Total Extinction Theodore Roosevelt NP - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N T o t a l Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction THRO1 NIA 2000 21 22.97 THRO1 NIA 2000 21 4.91 THRO1 NIA 2001 22 21.94 THRO1 NIA 2001 22 3.61 THRO1 NIA 2002 18 21.93 THRO1 NIA 2002 18 3.82 THRO1 NIA 2003 20 21.25 THRO1 NIA 2003 20 3.52 THRO1 NIA 2004 22 21.23 THRO1 NIA 2004 22 3.22 

## 109.32 Total 19.08 Total 21.864 Average 3.816 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 17%
Lostwood - Worst - Total Extinction Lostwood - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N T o t a l Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction LOST1 NIA 2000 19 75.25 LOST1 NIA 2000 19 19.98 LOST1 NIA 2001 24 80.22 LOST1 NIA 2001 24 21.52 LOST1 NIA 2002 24 67.55 LOST1 NIA 2002 24 20.14 LOST1 NIA 2003 24 65.55 LOST1 NIA 2003 24 18.57 LOST1 NIA 2004 24 81.67 LOST1 NIA 2004 24 26.78 

## 370.24 Total 106.99 Total 74.048 Average 21.398 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 29%
Lostwood - Best - Total Extinction Lostwood - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N T o t a l Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction LOST1 NIA 2000 18 24.98 LOST1 NIA 2000 18 5.32 LOST1 NIA 2001 23 22.83 LOST1 NIA 2001 23 4.71 LOST1 NIA 2002 23 22.22 LOST1 NIA 2002 23 3.78 LOST1 NIA 2003 23 22.19 LOST1 NIA 2003 23 3.86 LOST1 NIA 2004 23 22.22 LOST1 NIA 2004 23 4.26 

## 114.44 Total 21.93 Total 22.888 Average 4.386 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 19%
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 238 (Monday, December 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 77361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31410]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-131-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

December 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2000, Transcontinental Gas pipe 
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, certain revised tariff sheets are 
enumerated in Appendix A attached to the filing. Such tariff sheets are 
proposed to be effective January 1, 2001.
    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to reflect 
the 2001 GRI surcharges approved by the Commission's Order issued on 
September 19, 1999, in Docket No. RP00-313-000. Also, in accordance 
with GRI's 1993 settlement, Transco has calculated the firm 
transportation service load factors on the actual volumes transported 
during the 12 month period October 1999 through September 2000.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to 
affected customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-31410 Filed 12-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-20-00064-CV

IN RE MISTY STUTSMAN

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Misty Stutsman has filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

requesting this Court to compel the trial court to vacate its order granting real party in interest 

Cameron J. Peoples’s motion to sever. We conclude that Stutsman’s petition is not authenticated 

as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. As a result, we deny Stutsman’s request 

for relief. 

Rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The person filing the 

petition must certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual 

statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.”

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Counsel’s certification attached to Stutsman’s petition provides, “I 

hereby certify that all factual statements made by me in the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are 

true and correct.” Because Stutsman has failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 52.3(j) of 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure by certifying that the factual statements contained in the 

petition are supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record, the certification 

is defective. See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); 

see also In re Jimenez, No. 14-20-00387-CV, 2020 WL 3527550, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] June 30, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Williams, No. 05-20-00403-CV, 

2020 WL 2510192, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 15, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re 

Norman, No. 01-10-00915-CV, 2011 WL 286159, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 27, 

2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 
3

Because we conclude that Stutsman’s petition is not authenticated as required by Rule 

52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 17, 2020

Date Decided: September 18, 2020
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 27, 2009

p0120 

# Order

January 27, 2009

137306

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137306 COA: 286559 Wayne CC: 87-004374-FC JOHNNIE DAVID WHITT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 20, 2008 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGMT - T.M. SHANNON



 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 Confidential 
  
 

 
  
 Interoffice Memorandum

  

			
	 To:
	 	 Personnel File

		
	 From:
	 	 Timothy M. Shannon, EVP & Chief Medical Officer

		
	 Date:
	 	 February 1, 2005

		
	 Re:
	 	 Amendment to Employment Agreement dated September 9, 2002


  
 I, Timothy M. Shannon, (“the
Executive”) signed an Employment Agreement (“the Agreement”) with my employer, CuraGen Corporation (“the Company”), on or about September 9, 2002, and subsequently signed an Addendum to the Agreement on October 31, 2003.
Exhibit A, Item 1) of the original Agreement provides that the Executive’s initial base salary shall be subject to increases by the Board of Directors, which shall review the salary periodically. Therefore, pursuant to the minutes of the
January 25, 2005, Meeting of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, the Executive’s 2005 base salary will be adjusted to $310,000 per year, payable in bi-weekly installments. 
  
 Unless explicitly changed in the Addendum dated October 31, 2003, all other terms of the
original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  

	
	 /s/ Timothy M. Shannon


	Timothy M. Shannon
	
	 /s/ Jonathan M. Rothberg


	Jonathan M. Rothberg
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00681-CR

Demoria HARRIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR3824

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we REVERSE the trial court’s 

judgment and RENDER a judgment of acquittal. 

SIGNED July 26, 2017.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
## CedarHouse P.O. Box 163 Kake, Alaska 99380 Telephone 907-785-4177 Fax: 907-785-4902 Email:
May 27, 2014

Michael Martin United States Department ofTransportation Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) Sent via email to MichaeJ.F.Martin@dot.gov [mailto:Michael.F .Martin@dot.govJ

Dear Mr. Martin,

We are owners ofa small business that has been inexistence inKake Alaska since 1983. We are providing your office with our observations as a small business owner and ourrecommendation for an aircarrier forthe Essential Air Service (EAS) contract for Kake, Alaska.

First ofall, wewould like to thank the US Department ofTransportation forproviding EAS contracts for small communities such as Kake. Ifitwasn't forprograms such as this, our cost of shipping as well as airtravel would be sky-high.

Our business, Cedar House, recommends Harris Air for the following reasons: I. When the weather ismarginal, Harris Air can be seen flying into Kake when the other Juneau airlines stay on the ground. This has been going on foryears, and we choose to do any business travel with Harris Air because ofthis. During some winter months, even thejets overhead Juneau. When we go on ourbuying and seIling trips, we prefer to fly with someone who can get us in& out ofKake on the day we made reservations for travel. 2. Harris Air has been flying IFR for years. We know that some ofthe other air carriers have finally started flying IFR, however, it is something that they have promised Kake foryears. We see too many empty promises when it's time for the EAS contract. 3. Harris Air does UPS shipping. Often we ship out furs fortanning. Having the airlines do UPS shipping isneeded for small businesses.

Thank you foryour attention to our letter.
July 6, 2015 United States Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20590 Filed in www.regulations.gov 

# AkinGump STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP

GREGORY S. WALDEN +1 202 .887.4213/fax: +1 202 .887.4288 gswalden@akingump.com

Re: Petition for Exemption ofPreNav, Inc. under Section 333 ofthe FAA Modernization and Reform Act, 49 U.S.C. 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11 - Docket No. FAA-2015- 1261; Response to Request for Additional Information On behalf of PreNav, Inc. ("PreNav"), we respond to Mr. Jake Troutman's email to the undersigned on June 23, 2015 requesting information necessary for the FAA to process PreNav's petition. I. Describe the aircraft make, model, and type (i.e. fixed wing, rotorcraft , lighter than air) for the proposed operation. The description should include the maximum weight

(includingpayload). The information can be located in the aircraft manual. In PreNav's petition, we stated that PreNav has selected a rotorcraft consisting of a RotorBits carbon fiber airframe, Pixhawk flight controller (manufactured by 3D Robotics) running custom firmware, onboard sensors and electronics, a radio transmitter for manual piloting, and ground control software. We are sending PreNav's Aircraft Manual Version 1.1 dated June 2015 , which contains the information requested on the aircraft PreNav will operate, by separate email as this Manual contains commercially sensitive and proprietary information. Briefly, the UAV has eight electric motors mounted on four arms, and has a maximum weight including payload of9.1 lbs. 2. Provide a copy ofthe Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.I, Volume 3, Chapter 8 , Section I. Ifyou wishfor us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operationplease inform us oryour intention by the requested response date listed below. PreNav is removing closed-set filming from its proposed operations and requests the FAA expeditiously complete processing ofits petition. As stated in its petition, PreNav is proposing to

RobertS . Strauss Building 1333 New Hampshire Avenue . N .W . 1Washington , D.C. 20036-1564 I 202 .887.4000 1fax 202 .887.4288 1 akingump comPreNav Petition for Exemption - Additional Information July 6, 2015 Page 2 

# AkinGump STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP

use its sUAS systems in order to automate visual inspections ofindustrial structures such as wind turbines, cell phone towers, flare stacks, bridges, rooftops, mines, and construction sites. Sincerely,
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
     10-K FOR JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
     SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            480,225
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15,137,298
<ALLOWANCES>                                      470,290
<INVENTORY>                                    22,462,421
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               39,379,026
<PP&E>                                          7,118,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                    983,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 47,042,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,832,637
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           45,628
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,243,330
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   47,042,542
<SALES>                                        88,311,454
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               88,311,454
<CGS>                                          73,263,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,356,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,259,081
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,231,820
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   201,281
<INCOME-TAX>                                       80,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               120,781
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      120,781
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .02
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
        EXHIBIT 23 TO ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR SYMIX SYSTEMS, INC.

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 33-40546, No. 33-45416, No. 33-73014, No. 33-73016, No. 333-660,
No. 333-10631, No. 333-10633, No. 333-43947 and No. 333-91811, and Form S-3 No.
333-42894) of Symix Systems, Inc. of our report dated July 27, 2000, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and the financial statement
schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Symix Systems, Inc.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
September 22, 2000
EXHIBIT 10.42



                                 IVP TECHNOLOGY


June 13, 2002


Orchestral Corporation
2100 Bloor Street West,
PO or Suite 6-114,
Toronto Ontario
M6S 5A5
Att:  Jeremy Rasmussen, President
Fax number 416-352-5455


Dear Jeremy:

Further to our  meeting in my office  with Kevin Birch on June 11, 2002 and your
email to me on June 12, 2002 please consider this letter as written notification
that  IVP  Technology  Corporation  is  terminating  the  software  distribution
agreement  with  Orchestral  Corporation  dated March 30, 1999 and  subsequently
amended on September 1, 1999 and May 31, 2000.

As  required by the  agreement  we shall be pleased to execute an  affidavit  or
other form of letter as may be  required by your  solicitors  with regard to the
disposal of any  confidential  information  obtained from Orchestral  related to
Power Audit that we have in our possession.

Sincerely yours,


/s/ Brian J. MacDonald

Brian J. MacDonald
President and CEO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6904

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DOUGLAS ALAN JARVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CR-91-70-N)

Submitted: October 14, 2005 Decided: December 1, 2005

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Alan Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Alan Jarvis seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his motion for modification of sentence, which the

district court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and a subsequent

order denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Jarvis has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 15, 2016

NO. 03

- 16

- 00097

- CV

J. L. S., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUST ICES PURYEAR, GOODWI N, AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgmen t in a suit affecting a parent and child relationship

signed July 7, 2015 and an order denying a request for d e novo review signed by the tr i a l court

on January 25, 2016. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments it appears that the

C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the C ourt dismisses the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. A ppellan t shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court

below.