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

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>                     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996      
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       124,959,000              
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0 
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0 
<EQUITIES>                                  25,796,000
<MORTGAGE>                                   2,500,000
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  472,000
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             165,415,000
<CASH>                                       5,593,000
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                          53,150,000
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      12,285,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             398,502,000
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            132,099,000
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         81,226,000
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                             62,580,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,649,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               398,502,000
<PREMIUMS>                                 128,160,000
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          4,377,000
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                            (606,000)
<OTHER-INCOME>                               5,670,000
<BENEFITS>                                  93,217,000
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  1,981,000
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        24,342,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,112,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,987,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,125,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,893,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                              29,269,000
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                         35,184,000
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              787,000     
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                          21,057,000
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                            10,018,000
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                             59,421,000
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# CA2006034EN.01000101.xml

| 10.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 34/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RANCHO MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES,

INC., a Delaware corporation,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RAY GRAY and LINDA GRAY,

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 12-56362

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00358-BENBLM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 6, 2014** 

Pasadena, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Appellee Rancho Mountain Properties (“Rancho”) seeks to recover amounts

owing on a guaranty executed by Appellants Ray and Linda Gray. The district

court entered default against Linda Gray after she failed to appear, granted

FILED

JUN 10 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
summary judgment against Ray Gray, and entered a final judgment against the

Grays in the amount of $10,622,705.64. The Gray’s arguments on appeal are

meritless (if not frivolous). We affirm. 

I

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Linda Gray’s two

motions to vacate entry of default, nor by granting Rancho’s motion for default

judgment. Linda Gray has no meritorious defense to the claim against her. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), 60(b)(1); TCI Grp. Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691,

696–97 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled in part on other grounds by Egelhoff v. Egelhoff

ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141 (2001). 

II 

The district court correctly granted summary judgment against Ray Gray. 

Rancho presented undisputed evidence in support of each element for a breach of

guaranty, and Ray Gray did not show there was a genuine dispute as to any

material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood

Apartments, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453, 475 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). Indeed, Ray Gray’s

argument that the district court erred in refusing to allow him to file a response to

the motion for summary judgment, which Gray’s counsel copied and pasted almost

verbatim from his original motion for an opportunity to respond, is frivolous. The

2
district court did in fact allow Ray Gray to file a response, and the very same

attorney that represents Ray Gray in this appeal filed that response. Ray Gray’s

remaining arguments regarding alleged disputed facts are similarly meritless. 

III

Finally, Ray Gray’s argument that the district court “should not have

considered” the supplemental declarations and exhibits that Rancho filed with its

reply in support of the motion for summary judgment is similarly frivolous. The

district court specifically stated in its order that “the Court d[id] not rely on the

supplemental declaration and filings offered with [Rancho’s] Reply,” and Ray

Gray has presented no evidence to the contrary.

AFFIRMED. 

3
1 Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:41 PM

To: 'bgivens@3daerial.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Schandler, An drea (FAA); Cooper, Thuy (FAA) Subject: Request for Additional Information

January 29, 2015

Mr. Bret Givens 3D Aerial Solutions, LLC
4725 Constitutional Court Dayton, OH 45440

Dear Mr. Givens:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0872). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 List the maximum aircraft speed proposed for th is operation, please includ e the airspeed type.

 Provide information regarding the radio frequency sp ectrum. This information can be located in the
aircraft manual.

 Provide information regarding the proposed system fo r navigational guidance. This information can be
located in the aircraft manual.

 Provide information regarding the pr oposed Loss Link Procedures. This information can be located in
the aircraft manual.

 Provide information regarding the pr oposed Flight Termination System (FTS). This information can be
located in the aircraft manual.

 Your petition does not reference a pre-flight inspecti on and/or checklist. Describe the process used to determine if the UAS is airworthy and in safe condition for operation in the NAS.

 Your petition references the material listed belo w, however the material was not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o eBee User Manual

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA H eadquarters or electronically via e-mail 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by February 12, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.2 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
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22705]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 2, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 26, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 398 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-758, K2024-51.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-22705 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# Official Journal C 207/17 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 207 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4717 August 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 207

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4717 August 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 207/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 207/2 | Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the antidumping measures applicable to imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the People's Republic of China, India, South Africa and Ukraine | 2 |
| 2004/C 207/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case No COMP/M.3532 — CVC/FP/HYNIX SYSTEM IC BUSINESS (JV)) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 207/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 207/2

Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the antidumping measures applicable to imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the People's Republic of China, India, South Africa and Ukraine

2

2004/C 207/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case No COMP/M.3532 — CVC/FP/HYNIX SYSTEM IC BUSINESS (JV)) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
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 on Form 10-QSB ("Form 10-QSB") of Clopton House Corporation,  (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Meuse, President and President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)  The Form 10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Joseph Meuse

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

Joseph Meuse

President and Chief Executive Officer

August 1, 2008
Exhibit 32.1





Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the quarterly report of Purio Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.




Dated:  May 14, 2010





By:       /s/ Daryl English


Daryl English


President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,


Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary, Treasurer
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 1 148 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 - CE - 0 3 9 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **:** 

### G. Keith Noles **Date**

**Branch Manager Date**
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) / Rule 15d-14(a),
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TE Products Pipeline Company, LLC;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 34-47986];c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 November 7, 2007
    /s/ JERRY E. THOMPSONJerry E. ThompsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
TEPPCO GP, Inc., Sole Manager
#### ADAMS et al. v. BIDA.

No. 21345.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 26, 1935.

L. H. Flewellen, of Ranger, and Frank Sparks, of Eastland, for plaintiffs in error.

Allen D. Dabney, of Eastland, for defendant in error.

per Curiam.

The transcript of the record was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals on February 29, 1932, 61 days from the date of filing of the bond and petition for writ of error, but within less than 60 days from the service of the writ of error. At that time article 1839, as amended by the Acts of 1931, 42d Leg., p. 100, c. 60, was in effect. Under that amendment it was provided that the plaintiff in error should file the transcript with the Court of Civil Appeals within 60 days from the perfection of the writ of error.

The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the writ of error was perfected when the writ of error bond was duly filed, and accordingly dismissed the proceeding for want of jurisdiction. That holding is in conflict with the opinion of this court in the cases of Borger v. Morrow, 82 S.W. (2d) 944, and Campbell v. First National Bank in Lubbock, 82 S.W.(2d) 954, released on May 22nd, 1935, in which cases it was held that under that amendment the writ of error was perfected by the service of citation in error.

Article 1728, R. S. 1925, as amended by the Acts of 1927, 40th Leg., p. 214, c. 144, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 1728), authorizes this court to reverse and remand a cause on the application for writ of error without the necessity of granting the writ and hearing same, if the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals is in conflict with a previous opinion of this court. Casstevens v. Texas & P. R. Co., 119 Tex. 456, 32 S.W. (2d) 637, 73 A. L. R. 89. In the instant case, the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals is clearly in conflict with the previous opinions of this court in the cases cited.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for consideration on its merits.
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 450

EX PA R TE D O N A LD R A Y A R N O LD , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 3 0 7 8 5 - CR I N T HE 1 3 DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM NAV ARR O CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u an t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y o u ng , 4 1 8 S. W. 2 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 6 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 6 7 )
. A p p li c an t w a s c o n v ic te d o f th eft and sentenc ed to fiftee ny ear s’ imprisonment. Ap pli c ant c on te nd s th a t his c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e becau se he fa ile d to timely file a notice of appe al. We r emande d this a pplication to the trial court for f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law
. T h e tr ia l c o u rt ha s d e te r

mi n e d th a t t

r ia l c o u n s e l f

a il e d to ti me ly f il e a n o ti c e o f a p p e a l. We2

find, there fore , that Applica n t is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of

-time appe al of the judgme nt of conviction in Cause No. 30785-CR from the 13 J udicial District Court of Nava rro th County . Applicant is order ed re turned to that time at which he may g ive a wr itten notice of a ppeal
so th a t h e ma

y th e n , w it h th e a id o f c o u n s e l, o b ta in

a me an in g f

u l a p p e a l. A ll ti me li mi ts s h a ll be
c a lc ulate d a s if

the se nte nc e ha d b e e n im

po se d o n the date on

wh ic h th e mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s. We h old tha t, s ho uld Ap pli c ant de sir e to pr os e c ute an a pp e a l, he mus t take a ff

ir ma tiv e ste ps to f

ile
a wr itt e n n oti c e of

a pp e a l in the tr ia l c ourt

wi thi n 3 0 d ay s a ft e r t

he mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s.

Deliver ed: Novembe r 10, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh