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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,099
<SECURITIES>                                    19,107
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,461
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,933
<PP&E>                                          50,149
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,299
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        84,960
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,374
<SALES>                                          5,789
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,147
<CGS>                                            3,136
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,655
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,677
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,697
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,401
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,296
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,296
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54


</TABLE>
Big Bend NP

Organ Pipe Cactus NM White Sands NM

Padre Island NS

Petrified Forest NP

Amistad NRA

Guadalupe Mountains NP

Wupatki NM

Bandelier NM

Carlsbad Caverns NP

Lake Meredith NRA

Saguaro NP

Chaco Culture

NHP

Chiricahua NM

Pecos NHP

Coronado NMEM

Walnut Canyon NM

Palo Alto

Battlefield NHS

Tonto NM

Hohokam Pima NM

Tuzigoot NM

Lyndon B. Johnson NHP

Fort Bowie NHS

Fort Union NM

Fort Davis NHS

Gila Cliff Dwellings NM

Casa Grande Ruins NM

Hubbell Trading

Post NHS

San Antonio Missions NHP

Chamizal NMEM

Tumacacori NHP

Sunset Crater Volcano NM

Joshua Tree NP

Mojave NPR

Maderas

del Carmen

Ocampo

F&F PA

Canon de

Santa Elena

F&F PA

Cuatrocienegas

Laguna Madre y

Delta del Rio Bravo

Cumbres de Monterrey

Campo Verde

Sierra de Ajos/Bavispe

El Pinacate y Gran

Desierto de Altar

Alto Golfo de California y

Delta del Rio Colorado

Sierra de San

Pedro Martir

Constitucion de 1857

Gulf of California

Pacific Ocean Gulf of Mexico

Sonora

Chihuahua

Durango

Sinaloa

Zacatecas

Tamaulipas

Coahuila De Zaragoza

Nuevo Leon

San Luis Potosi

Nayarit

Baja California Sur

Baja California

Aguascalientes

Texas

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma California

Jalisco Veracruz

-Llave

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

United States & Republic of Mexico

National Park Units & Protected Areas in Border States

Produced by Intermountain Region Geographic Resources Program December 2009
[No. 25254-6-II.

Division Two.

December 8, 2000.]

#### Deborah K. Kelley, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Corrections, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grays Harbor County, No. 95-2-00586-8, David E. Foscue, J., entered September 29,1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, C.J., concurred in by Morgan and Seinfeld, JJ. Now published at 104 Wn. App. 328.
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:07 PM

To: 'mark@wildhorsesfilm.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Charles Franklin, Inc. DBA Wild Horses A Film 

Company (FAA-2015-1022)

June 8, 2015 

Dear Mr. Underkofler: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-1022). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by 

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and 

remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the 

requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by June 22, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
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 New York Residential, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert Kornstein, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(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
      16, 2009By:
            /s/
      Robert
      KornsteinName:
            Robert
      KornsteinTitle:
            Acting
      Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial
      Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6453
JERRY L. ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. M. JOHNSON, Health Service Director; H. J. PONTON, Warden; SAYED KAZI, Prison Physician; J. FIELDS, Director of Treatment Programs; G. HARRIS, Registered Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:04-cv-00641-HCM) Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 5, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry L. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jerry L. Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failing to submit three copies of the complaint or to file a concise amended complaint. 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 Adams seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,534
<SECURITIES>                                    12,460
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,816
<ALLOWANCES>                                       732
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,398
<PP&E>                                       1,378,365
<DEPRECIATION>                                  96,987
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,408,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,767
<BONDS>                                        664,798
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           552
<OTHER-SE>                                     640,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,408,398
<SALES>                                        447,379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               469,405
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  380,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,914
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 86,665
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,818
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,847
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,847
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
        

</TABLE>
----

            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE         

No 55/2004

of 23 April 2004         

amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be inserted after point 26 (Council Directive 90/377/EEC) of Annex XXI to the Agreement:

                           ‘ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICS

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 24 April 2004, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 23 April 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

               P. WESTERLUND            

----

(1)OJ L 127, 29.4.2004, p. 144.

(2)OJ L 332, 9.12.2002, p. 1.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

----
|                           |
|---------------------------|
|                           |  |
| DATED: March 3, 2014 | /S/    T. Michael Price         |
|                      | T. Michael Price |
|                      | President and Chief Executive Officer |
REGULATORY REVIEW LISTENING SESSION – REGION 8

3/1 5/11 – at the Region 8 Office in Denver, Colorado REGION 8 TRIBAL REGIONAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE AND TRIBAL LEADERS SUMMIT Capacity Building under GAP and implementation of all Can we do open dumps with GAP? Include solid waste and other issues/activities in GAP Why do Tribes need ‘Treatment as a State” for non - regulatory programs and 319? Eliminate regulatory requirement for ‘Treatment as a State’ Tribes have the same authority and unique political relat ionship as the government. Tribal government should not be in the same group as States LUST – authority to implement under State but not Tribes. Tribes should have direct authority Drinking Water – lifting of the cap on drinking water set aside and non - p oint source Reduce regulatory requirements for drinking water Base funding for Tribal wetland grants EPA should publish guidance sooner Tribal regulatory ability to delegate the program to Tribes with base funding Consistency with whole programs Multi Agen cy coordination where there are overlaps Strengthen and revisit the Executive Order on Environmental Justice Who is the lead for Agency NEPA documents? Federal Agencies should have the same format, one standard NEPA process. NEPA - toxicology needs to co nsider the unique public health, ecological and cultural impacts. Should consider the site specific implications for that culture The Tribal version of NEPA – TEPA, should trump the national NEPA process and be integrated Federal Agencies need to move qui ckly with authorizations with Tribal codes, etc. Tribes need uniform reportingLook at the consistency of proximate standards. Tribes are required to follow stringent standards

(similar to a National Park). Tribes need flexibility to determine appropriate standards/categorical distinctions Indirect Costs – regulatory burden of support cost with awarding a grant is a burden to the Tribe. Need to increase baseline funding for GAP and water programs ($150,000)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7537

EDWARD WAYNE MAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-97-1443-AM)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Wayne May, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action purportedly filed under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. May v. Tucker, No. CA-97-1443-AM

(E.D. Va. Oct. 7, 1997). Insofar as the district court properly

construed this action as a request for habeas relief under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), we note that we would

deny a certificate of appealability. 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
# C_2022427EN.01005201.xml

| 9.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/52

---

SINGLE RESOLUTION BOARD

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2021

(2022/C 427/52)

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

https://www.srb.europa.eu/system/files/media/document/2022-09-12_SRB-Final-Annual-Accounts-2021.pdf

---
# C_2022304EN.01000101.xml

| 9.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10757 – MUTARES / CIMOS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 304/01)

On 28 July 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10757. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10757. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 266 

To prohibit universal service support of commercial mobile service and 

commercial mobile data service through the Lifeline program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2015 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit universal service support of commercial mobile 

service and commercial mobile data service through the 

Lifeline program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘End Taxpayer Funded 

5 Cell Phones Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIFELINE SUPPORT FOR MOBILE 

7 SERVICE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—A provider of commercial mobile 

9 service or commercial mobile data service may not receive 

10 universal service support under sections 214(e) and 254 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 266 IH

1 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 214(e); 

2 254) for the provision of such service through the Lifeline 

3 program of the Federal Communications Commission. 

4 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

5 (1) COMMERCIAL MOBILE DATA SERVICE.—The 

6 term ‘‘commercial mobile data service’’ has the 

7 meaning given such term in section 6001 of the Mid8 dle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 

9 (47 U.S.C. 1401). 

10 (2) COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICE.—The term 

11 ‘‘commercial mobile service’’ has the meaning given 

12 such term in section 332 of the Communications Act 

13 of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          74,153
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (184)
<INVENTORY>                                         45
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,769
<PP&E>                                          37,445
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (5,936)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,667
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,696
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,024
<SALES>                                            401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,105
<CGS>                                              358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,881
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   177
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 826
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,321)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,321)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (4.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (4.46)
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6503

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ALVIN GREGORY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:12

- cr - 00316

- BO

- 1 )

Submitted : July 2 3 , 2021 Decided: August 10, 2021

Before WILKINSON , AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Alvin Gregory , Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES AT TORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Alvin Gregory appeals the district court’s order s denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)( 1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 , and his subsequent motion for reconsideration

. We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v . Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). Here, the district court assumed without deciding that Gregory exhausted his administrative remedies and that he stated extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court denied the motion s , however, after analyzing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and determining that relief was not warranted under the circumstances in Gregory’s case. Upon review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gregory’s motion for compassionate release based on its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order s . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED