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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001002637
<NAME> MILLENIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          34,456
<SECURITIES>                                    35,512
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,571
<PP&E>                                          56,241
<DEPRECIATION>                                (20,626)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,744
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,364
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,719
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  100,434 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,689
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,840)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,840)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,840)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Margaret Riley, Appellant, v Gregory Kaladjian et al., Respondents.

[631 NYS2d 543]

Appeal by the petitioner from stated portions of (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Levine, J.), dated January 19, 1994, and (2) an order of the same court, dated June 8, 1994.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs, for reasons stated by Justice Levine in his memorandum decision dated December 16, 1993, and his order dated June 8, 1994, respectively. Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1262

DAVID WEBB , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MICHAEL KLINE, Mayor; HILARY A. CROTHERS

- MOORE, Commissioner; CORPORAL DENNIS R. WOOD, Police Officer; SERG E ANT MICHAEL S. HICKEY , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J. Mark Coulson , Magistrate Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 00008

- JMC )

Submitted : April 28, 2022 Decided: May 17, 2022

Before MOTZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
David Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Jason L. Levine, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE TRUST, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opi nions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
David Webb s eeks to appeal the magistrate judge ’s order granting the D efendants’
motion for an extension of time to respond to Webb’s complaint and denying Webb ’s
motion s for entry of default , default judgment , and sanctions

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). T he order Webb seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Webb’s motion for a stay pending appeal as moot

. We di spense 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.
DISMISSED
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

# Vipers on the Move: HMLA-267 Deploys to Okinawa

By PFC. Liah KitchenMarine Corps Air Station Miramar

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
#### Will of Cieszynski : Bartosiewicz, Respondent, vs. Cieszynski, Appellant.

*February 9*

March *8, 1932.*

*William F. Quick*of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Bernard J. Adam-kiewicz,*and oral argument by *Mr. Adamkiewicz*and *Mr. James Finnegan,*both of Milwaukee.

Wickhem, J.

The sole question upon this appeal is whether the findings are sustained by the evidence, and it is *354the conclusion of the court that the judgment herein should be affirmed without opinion. This memorandum is filed solely for the purpose of calling attention to an impropriety upon the part of the attorney for the respondent. Mr. Adamkiewicz drafted the will in question, was an important witness upon .the issue of undue influence, and must have anticipated in advance of the trial that his presence as a witness would be required. It appears from the record that he nevertheless appeared and conducted the litigation on behalf of the estate. In such a situation a lawyer should withdraw from the conduct of the litigation, or his clients should forego his testimony. The matter has recently been discussed in *Interior Woodwork Co. v. Buhler, ante,*p. 1, 238 N. W. 822, and needs no further exposition here.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1439 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1439

     To direct the Federal Communications Commission to revise its 
sponsorship identification rules so as to require the disclosure of the 
    names of significant donors to persons paying for or furnishing 
 broadcast matter or origination cablecasting matter that is political 
 matter or matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of 
                           public importance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2017

 Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Welch, 
 Mr. Khanna, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. 
  Aguilar, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. 
   Kilmer, Mr. McNerney, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Raskin, Ms. Shea-Porter, Ms. 
 Jackson Lee, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. O'Halleran, Mr. Quigley, 
  Mr. Norcross, Ms. Norton, Mr. Tonko, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Keating, Ms. 
Kaptur, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Brownley of California, Mr. Evans, Mr. DeFazio, 
and Mr. Ruiz) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To direct the Federal Communications Commission to revise its 
sponsorship identification rules so as to require the disclosure of the 
    names of significant donors to persons paying for or furnishing 
 broadcast matter or origination cablecasting matter that is political 
 matter or matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of 
                           public importance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Keeping Our Campaigns Honest Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. REVISION TO SPONSORSHIP IDENTIFICATION RULES.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Federal Communications Commission shall revise its sponsorship 
identification rules (sections 73.1212 and 76.1615 of title 47, Code of 
Federal Regulations) so as to provide that, in the case of broadcast 
matter or origination cablecasting matter that is political matter or 
matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public 
importance, the announcement required by such sections shall include 
the names of significant donors to the person the identity of which is 
required to be disclosed in such announcement.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Speedus Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shant
S. Hovnanian, Chairman of the Board, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange of 1934, 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.

Date:   November 14, 2003


By:     /s/ Shant S. Hovnanian
        ----------------------
Name:   Shant S. Hovnanian
Title:  Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       20
#### Lemuel Moore v. Joseph Moore,

From Rutherford.

Between brothers, administration will be committed to the one most interested to execute it faithfully.

The County Court has power to revoke letters of administration issued during the same term, and to grant them to another.

The County Court of Rutherford, on the, Monday of March Term, 1827", ordered that letters of administration upon the estate of *Rebecca Flecker,*should issue to *Lemuel Moore.*The next day those letters were revoked, and administration committed to *Joseph Moore.*On an appeal to the Superior Court, it appeared that *George Moore,*the father of the present parties, died in the year 1817", leaving a will, of which lie appointed his sons *Lemuel*and *Joseph*executors ; by it, lie directed his estate to be equally divided between bis four children, of whom *353
      *Rebecca Flecker*was one. Property of the testator came to the hands both of *Joseph*and *Lemuel,*the former of whom had settled with the legatees, hot the latter had refused to account for the assets which came to his hands, and a petition was pending against him, filed by *Joseph, Rebecca*and *James,*the. other children of *George Moore. Rebecca Flecker*had been dead two years, she left children but no one had applied for hitters of administration upon her estate. *,*

His honor Judge, Norwood, affirmed the judgment of the County Court, and awarded a writ *oí procedendo,*whereupon *Ijemuel Moore*appealed to this Court.

*Wilson,*for'ihe. Appellant, submitted the case without argument. No Counsel appeared for the Appellee. ,

Haul, Judge.

Boils the County ami Superior Courts have appointed *Joseph Moore*the administrator *oí Rebecca Flecker deceased;*and in the absence of all evidence in the case, tisis Court would see no reason why he ought to be removed, and another appointed. But from the evidence which accompanies this case, abundant reason is shown why he ought *not*to be removed.

The rights of the next of kin of *Rebecca Flecker*are snore likely to he legally adjusted, wises’e they are identified with similar rights claimed by *Joseph Moore,*both of which are to he examined and decided on in the petition now pending betweess him and *Lemuel Moore.*

The circumstance that *Lemuel*isad been previously appointed at the saíne term is not of itself a sufficient objection to the appointment of *Joseph,*it admits of two answers: 1st, it does not appear, that *Joseph*had previous notice of the intended application ; 2d, all the days of tiie term arc considered as one, and every thing is in the power of the Court during its continuance.

L’er Curiam. — Judgment affirmed.
Manufacturer/ 

Importer 

(in· u.S.) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF 

MANUFACTURE OR lMPOHT( .. cFR§720.1o•> 

• (For Consolidated submissions, eacti substance must have a separate NOC form 

with the specnic identity of each chemical substance.) 

(if chemical identity is claimed CBI'): 

VII - Substance Confidentiality o<au..o<>. 

O I wish to continue to claim the substance identity confidential and the substantiation to support this claim is attached. 

Failure to submit the required substantiation in accordanC!l with 40 CFR 720.85(b) will result in a waiver of your claim. 

0 I previously claimed the substance identity as confidential and hereby relinquish that claim. 

Q I did not claim the substance identity as confidential in my originai·PMN submission. 

You must submit your completed notice no later than 30 calendar days alter the first date of commercial manufacture/importation 

to Mailing addresS: - - Address using courier service: 

USEPA Document Control Officer 

OPPT Document Control Office {7407M) TSCA Confidential Business Information Center 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Room 6428 

Washington, D.C. 20460 EPA East Building 

ATTN: Notice of Commencement 1201 Constitution Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004-3302 

Telephone: 202-564-8930 or 202-564-8940 

Date 

EPA Form 7710-56 (8-95)
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00113

- CV

S TEVEN D ENNY

, Appellant

V

.

T HE H ONORABLE L AWRENCE M.

‘ L ARRY ’ D OSS

, J USTICE

, 7 TH C OURT OF

A PPEALS

, P LACE 4 , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 251st District Court

of Pott er County (109,616

- C

- CV)

April 30, 2020

Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the trial cour t ’ s judgment

i s a ffirm ed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Steven Denny must pay all costs of this

appeal

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
**Exhibit21.1**

 

**TransmeridianExploration, Inc.**

List of Subsidiaries

December 31, 2004

 
| **Name**                                  | ** ** | **Jurisdiction**        |
|-------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------|
|                                      |       |                    |
| Transmeridian  Exploration, Inc           |       | Delaware                |
|                                      |       |                    |
| TMEI  Operating, Inc.                     |       | Texas                   |
|                                      |       |                    |
| Transmeridian  Exploration, Inc. (BVI)    |       | British  Virgin Islands |
|                                      |       |                    |
| Transmeridian  (Kazakhstan), Inc.         |       | British  Virgin Islands |
|                                      |       |                    |
| SOJSC  Caspi Neft TME                     |       | Republic  of Kazakhstan |
|                                      |       |                    |
| SOJSC  Transmeridian Caspi Petroleum Ltd. |       | Republic  of Kazakhstan |

----

Notes:

 

1)              All subsidiaries are 100% owned, directly orindirectly

2)              “SOJSC” stands for Subsidiary Open JointStock Company

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: CONDEMNATION BY SUNOCO

PIPELINE L.P. OF PERMANENT AND

TEMPORARY RIGHTS OF WAY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF ETHANE, PROPANE, LIQUID PETROLEUM GAS,

AND OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

IN THE TOWNSHIP OF UNION, HUNTINGDON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, OVER THE LANDS OF

STEPHEN GERHART AND ELLEN S.

GERHART

PETITION OF: STEPHEN GERHART

AND ELLEN S. GERHART :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 400 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of January, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
DEP

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 

& STATE WATER QUALITY 

MONITORING

NGWA - Hydraulic Fracturing Workshop

May 05, 2011
DEP

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Watershed Management

(717)783-5469

joslee@state.pa.us

Joseph J. Lee, Jr., P.G

President
DEP

1. State Oil & Gas (O&G) regulations are adequate to 

protect water resources 

2. Well construction regulations are adequate for 

Hydraulic Fracturing (HF); However, development of 

adaptable BMPs would assist operators and states

3. There are environmental challenges for water and 

drinking water programs posed by gas shale 

development 

4. We know surface water & ground water stressed by 

past mineral extraction in area of Marcellus Shale 

5. We have holes in our understanding of ground water 

going forward

KEY MESSAGES
DEP
Depth to Marcellus Shale in feet
DEP
DEP
DEP

Impacts on Water Resources

What We Know

•Water withdraws for HF solutions: streams, CWS 

•Produced water containment, transport, treatment, 

discharge or disposal. 

•Earth disturbance / construction, access & pipelines

•Site waste – equipment maintenance repair & other 

operations. 
DEP

• Marcellus and Other Shale 

Issues
DEP

Water Pollution Causes:

What We Know

•Loss of produced water or wastes at the surface 

•Improper well casing design or construction

•Aquifer disturbance during drilling

•Improper treatment

•No evidence or concern in Pennsylvania that HF has 

caused direct migration of fluids to underground 

sources of drinking water 
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP

State Ground Water Quality 

Monitoring USGS Data 

Series 

Report 314 

(2009):

Most 

available 

data from 

ground 

water 
DEP
DEP

• Abandoned Mine 

Drainage
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP

•10/2008 - Elevated total dissolved 

solids (TDS) > than SDWA standard 

(500 mg/l) •Potential sources of TDS in 

watershed include abandoned & 

active surface and deep coal mines, 

waste water and industrial 

discharges (receiving HF flow-back)

•PA DEP reduced HF % flow at 

wastewater treatment plants •River under historic low flow 

conditions •TDS concentrations returned to 

normal in December 2008 after 

recovery of river flow 
DEP
DEP

• Marcellus and Other Shale 

Issues
DEP
DEP
DEP

Gas Well

Water 

Well

Intake

Gas Wells
DEP
DEP
DEP

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Watershed Management

(717)783-5469

joslee@state.pa.us

Joseph J. Lee, Jr., P.G

President
No. 82-5516.

#### Bowman *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In re Willard: Willard and others, Respondents, vs. State Board of Control and another, Appellants.

*September 13*—

October *12, 1937.*

*563For the appellants there was a brief by the *Attorney General,*and oral argument by *L. E. Vaudreuil,*deputy attorney general.

For the respondents there was a brief by *Kading & Kad-ing*of Watertown, and oral argument by *Charles E, Kading.*

Wicichem, J.

In view • of the court’s conclusion that under the facts of this case an appeal does not lie to this court from the order of the county court, we do not reach a consideration of the merits. It was held in *Ogden v. State,*162 Wis. 500, 503, 156 N. W. 476, 477, that,—

> “Juvenile court proceedings are special proceedings for the exercise of the special limited jurisdiction of this court, as conferred by statute, and that its proceedings are not according to the course of the common law. In such cases there is no right of review by writ of error and the parties aggrieved are limited to an appeal as given by statute.”

It becomes necessary, therefore, to consider what provisions for appeal are contained in ch. 48, Stats., commonly known as the “Children’s Code.”

Sec. 48.07 (8), Stats., provides:

> “In any case where a child is found, determined or adjudged by the juvenile court to be . . . delinquent or in case of the transfer of the permanent control, care and custody of a child or the termination of the rights of the parents with reference to such child, appeal may be taken to the circuit court of the same county or if the circuit judge is the judge of the juvenile court, directly to the supreme court.

It is held in *In re Willard, ante,*p. 553, 275 N. W. 537, that this section gives no right of appeal to' the State Board of Control. Even if it did, no" direct' appeal would lie, since we take judicial notice that in Jefferson county the circuit judge is not the juvenile judge. In that situation, the statute expressly provides that all appeals must be to the circuit court.

*By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00905]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE AND TIME:  Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. and its 
continuation on Thursday January 15, 2015 at the conclusion of the Open 
Meeting.

PLACE:  999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS:  This meeting will be closed to the public.

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement--80 FR 1030 (January 
8, 2015)

    This meeting will be continued on February 10, 2015.
* * * * *

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shelley E. Garr,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-00905 Filed 1-15-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
```