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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            1,070      
<SECURITIES>                                          0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                    24,678      
<ALLOWANCES>                                        549      
<INVENTORY>                                       4,400      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 15,740      
<PP&E>                                           12,026      
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2,264      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   43,856      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8,318      
<BONDS>                                          12,635      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0      
<PREFERRED>                                           0      
<COMMON>                                            124      
<OTHER-SE>                                       23,159      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     43,856      
<SALES>                                          22,147      
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 31,696      
<CGS>                                             5,677      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    32,944      
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    414      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  904      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1,248)     
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (499)     
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (1,248)     
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0      
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (749)     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.06)     
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.06)     
<FN>
Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line on the Statement of
Financial Position or Results of Operations are reported at -0- herein.

* Notes and accounts receivable - trade are reported net of allowances for
  doubtful account in the Statement of Financial Position.
</FN>
                                                             


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1   Libra Alliance Corporation   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of Libra Alliance Corporation certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  1. the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008, 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-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  March 27, 2009/s/ April L. Erickson
April L. Erickson
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27236]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

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

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

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: November 21, 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 
November 15, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 733 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-418, K2025-416.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27236 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# 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:*                         November 29, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 750 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-439, K2025-436.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27905 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
No. 91-251.

No. 91-547.

#### Dooley et al. *v.*Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd.; and Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. *v.*Dooley et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Reported below: 289 U. S. App. D. C. 391,. 932 F. 2d 1475.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          15,590
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,091
<INVENTORY>                                     40,089
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,673
<PP&E>                                         224,197
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 494,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,818
<BONDS>                                        284,757
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   494,426
<SALES>                                         60,363
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,363
<CGS>                                           44,524
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    69
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,515
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,806
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,480
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,326
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,326
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0335 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-187-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. 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 same 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 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: 

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, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### In re FORREST HILLS ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 81-135.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware.

Feb. 17, 1982.

Daniel Krapf, Wilmington, Del., for debt- or.

David Roeberg, Wilmington, Del., for Institutional Securities Corp.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

HELEN S. BALICK, Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtor filed a plan that states “under the plan, all classes are not impaired”. For this reason it requested that it be relieved from the filing of and hearing on a disclosure statement. The debtor does not intend to solicit acceptances because unimpaired classes are deemed under 11 U.S.C. § 1126(f) to accept such a plan.

A statement that a class is not impaired does not necessarily make it so. A creditor may assert that he is improperly treated as unimpaired. This is a matter for determination at the confirmation hearing if we equate the meaning of “impairment” to the meaning of “materially and adversely affected” under the Bankruptcy Act. Such a creditor, in addition to the filing of an objection to confirmation, may wish to solicit rejections to the plan. Section 1125(b), title 11, permits solicitation of acceptances or rejections only after the proponent of a plan has filed a written disclosure statement, approved, after notice and hearing, by the court as containing adequate information. If the requirement of a disclosure statement is waived, then a proponent of a plan could deprive an opponent of the plan from soliciting rejections. Such a result flies in the face of the express language of § 1125(b).

*105Under the Code, unlike the procedure under the Act, there is no hearing on the plan. The court is not required to determine if a plan should be submitted to creditors. Instead, there is a hearing on a disclosure statement. That statement together with a plan should give interested parties adequate information so they can make their own determination to accept or reject. The circumstances of each case should control whether the disclosure information and plan are separate documents or one document combining disclosure information with the plan and the amount and kind of information.

Interim Rule 2002(b)(5) requires at least 20 days notice of a hearing on a disclosure statement. The language of § 1125 is not the mandatory language of § 1128: “after notice, the court shall hold a hearing on confirmation of a plan”. Consequently, § 102(1) should apply. If no objections are filed to the disclosure information nor any requests that a hearing be held, the notice and hearing requirements of § 1125 are met and an actual hearing is unnecessary. The court may then consider whether the information is adequate on the pleadings.

An order is attached.
#### DEN ON DEMISE OF DAVID BRADFORD *vs.*CALEB ERWIN.

It ¡8 errorin a judge to leave it to the jury to decide who were the heirs of a deceased person. That is a question of law for the determination of the Court.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Mecklenburg County, Special Term, lS5l, his Honor Judge Ellis presiding.

This was an action of ejectment. Plea not guilty. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

*292
      *Boyden,*for the plaintiff.

*Wilson, Thompson*and *Alexander,*for the defendant.

Pearson, J.

The ease is very long, and presents many points. Most of them are not stated distinctly, and we prefer to put the decision upon one, in which there is manifest e? *rov.*

There are some twenty lessors, who claim as the heirs at law of one David Bradford, Junior. David Bradford, Senior, died in 17 79, having devised the land sued for, (as the plaintiff alleges.) to his son, the said David Bradford, Junior ; and, to show that, the plaintiff examined one George Erwin who swore, that “ said David died without children,” (be does not state the time of his death,) “leaving two'brothers James and Michael Bradford.” He also swore, David died in possession of the land and that *the lessors of the-plaintiff were the heirs at law of said David*Bradford, *Junior.*He further swore, he knew all of the children of the said James and Michael, except two, whom he had never seen, but he had frequently heard those two spoken of in the family, and among the relations, as the children of said Michael and James. He also swore, that J ames and Michael died before the commencement of this action. Witness was the uncle of David, James and Michael. He also swore, that David Bradford, junior, had sisters and other brothers, besides James and Michael. There was no proof of their death.

The defendant moved his Honor to charge “ that there was no evidence that any of the lessors of the plaintiff were the heirs at law of David Bradford, Junior; and that the statement of the witness Erwin, that they were his heirs at law, was not a question of fact, but one of law to be decided by the Court, and could not be proved by a witness in that way.”

His Honor refused to give the instruction, but told the jury, it was true, that, who were the heirs at law of a deceased person, vras a question of law, and not one of fact, *293to be proved by witnesses ; yet, if the jury could collect from the testimony, offered in the case, that the lessors of the plaintiff were the heirs at law of David Bradford, Junior, they should find for the plaintiff on that point.

In this there is error. His Honor correctly decided, that the heirs at law of a deceased person are to be ascertained, as a question of law, according to the canons of descent, in force at time of his death. But he then leaves it to the jury to *“*collect from the testimony, that the lessors were the heirs of David Bradford” — thus committing a double error, by leaving a question of law to the jury, and by leaving a question to the jury, in reference to which there was no evidence.

There must be a *venire de novo.*

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF OCTOBER 7 , 2014

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ------------------------------------------------------------------

WD76309 Sandrio DeJesu s

- Andujar vs. State of Missouri

WD77092 Clayton Blankenship vs. Hillary Porter

WD77231 Stephenie Sasnett, a Minor by and Through Her Guardian and

Natural Mother, Maria Sasnett, et al. vs. City of Kansas City,

Missouri

WD77398 In The Interest of A.P.D ., A.C.D., and A.M.D. vs. B.D. (Father)

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

NONE
No. 90-6133.

#### Diaz *v.*Rojeski et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Twan Conway, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1009]

Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, People v Saunders,*190 AD2d 1092, 1093, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1019). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Attempted Criminal Possession Weapon, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# 4th Force Recon Prepares Students for Basic Reconnaissance Course

By Lance Cpl. Luke Kuennen4th Marine Division

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
Exhibit 32.1

                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 Form  10-QSB/A of Absolute  Potential,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),   the  undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of their knowledge and belief, that:

          1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the  Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
               and

          2)   the information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all
               material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
               operations of the Company.



                                            /s/  Thomas F. Duszynski
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Thomas F. Duszynski
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

Date:    January 9, 2007

     This  certification  shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18
of the  Securities  and Exchange Act of 1934,  or the Exchange Act, or otherwise
subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange  Act. Such  certification
shall not be deemed to be  incorporated  by reference  into any filing under the
Securities  Act of 1933 or the  Exchange  Act,  except  to the  extent  that the
Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
EJSCREEN COMPARISON CHARTS

Table 1. Demographic Indicators (3 Mile Radius Centered at Facility).

Indicator Veolia Heritage Ross

Minority Population 66% 6% 16%

Low Income Population (<2x Poverty Line) 56% 46% 22%

Households Earning < $15,000/year (2000) 33% 26% 8%

Population Under 5 years of age 8% 7% 4%

Population over 64 years of age 9% 17% 13%
Veolia

Heritage

Ross

Figure 1. EJSCREEN Report: 3-Mile Radius Centered at Facility.
Argued and submitted June 3,

motion to strike state’s brief denied; otherwise affirmed June 23,

reconsideration denied August 18,

petition for review denied October 26, 1993 (318 Or 26)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*GLENN DOUGLAS MILLER, *Appellant.*

(B924280; CA A76680)

854 P2d 1007

Sam I. Hochberg, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Ann F. Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*429PER CURIAM

Defendant’s motion to strike the state’s brief is denied. On the merits, defendant raises a constitutional vagueness challenge directed at the traffic infraction of “failure to wear approved headgear.” ORS814.269; ORS815.050. Assuming, without deciding, that such a challenge is appropriate in a case not involving penal sanctions, we conclude that the laws cited by defendant are not unconstitutionally vague. Defendant’s concerns are best addressed to the legislature.

Motion to strike state’s brief denied; otherwise affirmed.