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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>                    0001004539
<NAME>                   AIRPLANES LIMITED
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       37
<ALLOWANCES>                                        12
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   257
<PP&E>                                            4479
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              153
<BONDS>                                           4058
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (980)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3658
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   134
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       65
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  91
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (30)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (30)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (30)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I.7 (+) Plant condition, 

productivity, health,

and vigor

D.3 (+) 

Nutrient 

availability

D.4 (+) Water 

holding capacity

2. Fractured 

restrictive layer

D.2 (+) Root 

penetration D.5 (-) 

Hydrologic 

barrier from 

over wash

3. Uniform burial and mixing of soil; 

burial of residue/live ground cover

I.6 (+/-) Dissolved 

contaminants to

ground water

I.2 (-) Soil 

erosion

I.3 (-) 

Sedimentation

I.5 (+) 

Nutrient use/ 

removal at

depth

I.1 (-) 

Runoff

D.1 (+)

Water 

infiltration; 

(+) surface 

roughness

Deep Tillage (324)

Pest 

Management 

Conservation 

System (595)

Nutrient 

Management 

(590)

Start

Initial setting: Cropland and other 

land where adverse soil conditions 

inhibit plant growth

ULEGEND

(-)

(-)

Pathway

C.3 (+) Swimmable, fishable waters

C.2 (+) Quality of 

receiving waters

(long term)

Pest 

Management 

Conservation 

System (595)

I.8 (+) Growth of 

weeds and other 

noxious/invasive

plants

D.6 (-) 

Contaminant 

concentrations

D.10 (+) Cost of 

operation and

maintenance; labor, 

equipment, time, and 

skill required by 

producer

D.9 (+) Adsorption 

of pesticides

I.9 (+) Crop and 

forage production

I.10 (+) 

Potential 

income

Conservation 

Management System 

(various practices)

I.14 (-) 

Pesticides 

to ground

and 

surface 

waters

D.8 (-) Soil 

structure, 

aggregation

D.7 (+) 

Oxidation of 

organic matter

4. Mixing of contaminated material 

with uncontaminated soil

I.11 (+/-)

Net return 

to 

producer

I.12 (+)

Soil 

erosion

I.13 (+/-) Soil carbon

1. Modified physical or 

chemical soil properties

C.4 (+/-) Income and 

income stability 

(individuals and

community)

Mitigating practice,

(+)

I.4 (+) 

Aquatic 

habitats

C.1 (+) Aquatic 

habitat health

NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM November 2022

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect
wimmommomANiotsp!::

Page A . •

(41 rxrtmo

nom AUTGliATIC 111717.ttir Z77 •

;.*:.Z. DIE. 5200.10 DOES NOT A?P':.!

- 40P-SECRETr• •

•

•

11'

ty,

December 20, 1963

11124DRANDIDI IVft Mt. 111122.011, DOM, CIA

As we discussed yesterday, Iuntil like you to take

a personal hand to guide, in my behalf, thi s

, 1 Program 1, of a

As you kmov, his budget

of atm satellite systems. I would

sure that this maw is spent is the most pro..

ductive way. I suggest the folleviag general guidelines. . • •

I feel that studies of specific byrdisre, or design • .:

studies, are not appropriate until the operational amd .•

inteLtigence objectives that are being sought are clarified. •

I look to you for help first in bringing about this clarifim •

cation. I believe that ve need a statement of miasisn, or " •

a list, but at most a limited list, of specific adasions, in •

order first of all to define wiry it is that we are studying •

a new development. Second, such a statement or list mosla

serve as • basis for determining the features to be emphasised•:,;: . '

in hardware and systems studies, and for setting the prioritise

in trade-off studies that any ensue. Amon the features that

=at be related to each other and fitted late a mission con-.

ceps are covertness, vulnerability, reaction time, resolution,

coverage, and flexibility of targeting and recovery.

Wore specifically, it is my impression that for later • • ..:••••

use several combinations of boosters and lamb aircraft have •

already been well studied, and indeed to the point that ape

can generalize from these studies to conclusipas about the

liatitations of systems based on available hardwire. I feel

that no new studies of this kind should be started until the •

r its of todies have and analyzed:

Delete Thi
Numerous trajectory studies have also been made

showing the target coverage available from oceibinations

of fixed Um& and recovery points, and relating this

coverage to duration of mission. I believe that these

also Rust be analysed before further such studies mould

be appropriate. Colonel Paul Worthless of the HID Staff

can direct you to all of the studies I have mentioned.

At your convenience, I mould like to her your

thinking about objectives and requirements, and your

specific recommendations as to studies to be undertaken.„.

I do not think that Program I should spend any major portion

of the budgeted study funds until I have bad your recommendations.

Slam

BROCIMAY XeftlLLAI

1-2 Dr. Wheelon 8S-5

S8-1

9.

8.

67

tot

--TOP-SEeRETDelete This al

.• .

1-r. de -P.Ig33. 

. .;.

P
•

•

•

• • 6"

6

•

a •

•

t • •
# C_2005069EN.01000201.xml

| 19.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/2

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 25 November 2004

in Case C-18/03 P Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Appeal - EAGGF - Financial participation in projects - Withdrawal of the Fund's financial aid)

(2005/C 69/03)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-18/03 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 16 January 2003 by Vela Srl, established in Milan (Italy), and Tecnagrind SL, established in Barcelona (Spain), (Lawyer: M. Carretta), the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, assisted by M. Moretto) – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 25 November 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                   18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In  connection  with the Annual Report of Schick  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year ended March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Ronald Rosner, Principal Financial 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 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.

                                          /s/ Ronald Rosner
                                          ------------------------
                                          Ronald Rosner
                                          Director of Finance and Administration
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)
                                          June 10, 2005
# C_2005132EN.01001502.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/15

---

Action brought on 23 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic

(Case C-135/05)

(2005/C 132/29)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Recchia and M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1)on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, (2) under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazardous waste and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC (4) on the landfill of waste; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1)on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, (2) under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazardous waste and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC (4) on the landfill of waste;

1

2

3

4

| 2. | Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On the basis of numerous documents, the Commission has learned of the large number of tips in Italian territory operating illegally and without control by the public authorities, some of which contain hazardous waste,

The Commission considers that while it tolerates the presence of such tips, the Italian Republic is infringing its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, and under Articles 2(1) of Council Directive 912/689/EEC on hazardous waste.

As regards the tips existing as at 16 July 2991, with permits or already functioning by that date, the lack of information on the reorganisation plans which the managers of such tips should have submitted by 16 July 2002 prompts the Commission to consider that such reorganisation plans and the relevant authorisation measures and measures for the possible closure of tips not meeting the requirements of the directive are non-existent.

The Commission considers therefore that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.

---

(1)  OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.

1

(2)  OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.

2

(3)  OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.

3

(4)  OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.

4

---
#### Schmidt and wife, Appellants, vs. DuBois, Guardian, and another, imp., Respondents.

*April 28*

June *11, 1930.*

*632
      *V. FI. Cady*and *Frank B. Moss,*both of Baraboo, for the appellants.

For the respondents DuBois and Bank of Baraboo there was a brief by *Grotophorst, Quale & Langer*of Baraboo, and oral argument by *Norman Quale.*

Rosenberry, C. J.

On behalf of the defendants it is argued that the plaintiffs should have intervened in the foreclosure action. Inasmuch as the entire matter is here upon the merits, it is considered that the questions raised should be disposed of.

On behalf of the plaintiffs it is argued that the trial court was of the opinion that the buildings could not properly be the subject of a chattel mortgage and it therefore erroneously concluded that the lien of plaintiffs’ mortgage was subordinate to that of the defendants’ mortgages. We find no warrant for that argument either in the findings of fact and conclusions of law or in the written opinion filed by the court. The court considered, and properly, that as between the defendants Carrol and their mortgagees, DuBois *633and the Bank of Baraboo, the buildings in question were fixtures under the rule laid down in *Huebschmann v. McHenry,*29 Wis. 655, and *Taylor v. Collins, 51*Wis. 123, 8 N. W. 22.

The buildings being so annexed to the soil as to constitute a part of the realty as between the parties to the chattel mortgage, they might be severed, but as to all others who dealt with them the buildings remained a part of the realty. The court found, and the finding is abundantly supported by the evidence, that neither the defendant DuBois nor the defendant Bank of Baraboo had any notice, actual or constructive, of the existence of the chattel mortgage. These buildings being as to all persons except those who were parties to the chattel mortgage or had notice thereof real property under the statute relating to the effect of a prior recording in the office of the register of deeds, the liens of the mortgages executed to the defendant DuBois and the defendant Bank of Baraboo were clearly superior to the fieri of plaintiffs’ chattel mortgage.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
### Subject: In support of Makani Kai 

## I Schuman Aviation Kamuela/Waimea BI service My name is Skip Schuman and I am Richard Schuman's brother, the owner ofSchuman Aviation airline and helicopter business. Mywife Taryn and I own property on the Big Island and I am a certified horse showjudge and livestock auctioneer which I do as hobbies. Ifrequent Waimea tojudge horse shows for the Big island Cutting Club, the Hawaii High School Rodeo Association and I have been the livestock auctioneer at the UofH Mealani Experiment station 4-H auction for many years. I frequent the Big Island 6-7 times per year and Iwould like to have the Waimea/Kamuela service route as an alternative to drivingto Kana or Hila. Please consider Schuman Aviation in your transportation decisions for the future for service to Kamuela/Waimea, Big Island of Hawaii. Thank you.



### Michael E.**"S~ip"** 

### Schuman (B) CCIM CPM Director ofIndustrial Services Group BISHOP STREET COMMERCIAL, LLC ;' •· .) ,.:::;] 

### 841 Bishop Street, Suite 808 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Cell: (808) 927-3470 Facsimile: (808) 237-5179 E-Mail: SSchuman@BishopSC.com Web Site: www.BishopSC.com
Disclaimer: Bishop Street Commercial. LLCacceptsno liability for the content of this email. or for the consequences of anyactions taken on the basis of the informationprovided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. If youare notthe intendedrecipientyou are notifiedthat disclosing. copying. distributing or takinganyaction in reliance on the contents of this information is strictlyprohibited. 

# JjPlease consider tho: environmentbefore printing this .:-mail.

1
CORONA HANDLE VIA 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112124 HANDLE VIA 

TOP SECRET BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

\\llllll\l\llll\\lll\\lll\\ll\llllll\1\\111\IIII\II\I\IIII\II\III 

· 14 000754440 

December 12, 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR COLONEL YOST 

SUBJECT: NASA Visit to PE and Itek 

Dr. Newell, General Smart, ~-----~and General Allen 

are visiting PE on the morning of December 18 and Itek that afternoon. The purpose of the visit is to discuss technology and facilities 

applicable to the development of a large astronomical telescope. We 

are co-sponsoring this trip because NRO contracts will be discussed. 

In preparation for this meeting Dr. Newell is meeting in General 

Allen's office at 1000 on Tuesday morning (December 16). General 

Allen and Captain Geiger are going to give Dr. Newell a rundown on 

NRO systems with particular attention to research and development 

projects in the optical technology area. I suggested to General Allen 

that you also attend this meeting and that along with the technology 

aspects Dr. Newell be reminded of the policy aspects of our programs. 

I am particularly concerned with the NASA/CORONA issue. General 

Allen asked that we furnish him some appropriate words. I suggest 

something along the following lines. 

We recognize that Dr. Newell has been briefed previously, however, 

we wanted to bring him up to date on policy matters. We are concerned 

because we see an increasing number of instances of disclosures by 

witting or credible people which tend to verify the fact of satellite reconnaissance and other overflights of denied territories. We anticipate that 

this problem will increase as the subject of ERS is discussed and the 

problems become very large if we do use CORONA in the ERS role. We 

have had previous experiences in trying to surface NRO systems in the 

white world, e.g. Percheron and UPWARD. Although these efforts 

stopped short of actual fruition, they all involved severe problems of 

retaining cover. The point is that there does exist a national policy 

approved by the President which requires that the U.S. government 

CONTROL NO 

------- BYEMAN TOP SECRET COPY ___ oF ___ COPIES 

CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112124 

PAGE ___ OF ___ PAGES 
HANDLE VIA 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112124 

TOP SECRET 

does not admit to the fact of satellite reconnaissance and there has 

been no change to this policy. We solicit NASA help in keeping 

knowledge of NRO programs and the offer of CORONA to NASA to the 

fewest people possible. We suggest that the guidelines sent to 

General Smart by letter of December 11 will help us maintain 

security aspects of the studies. 

~~ FREDERICK L. H 

Major, USAF 

HANDLE VlA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

CONTROL NO ______ _ 

BYEMAN TOP SECRET COPY ___ or ___ COPIES 

CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

000 DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112124 

PAGE ___ OF ___ PAGES
# FIFTH
AMENDMENTTO THEOCEAN ENERGY,
INC.LONG-TERM
INCENTIVE PLANFOR
NONEXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES

WHEREAS,
there is reserved to the Board of Directors of Ocean Energy, Inc. (the "Board") in
Section 7 of the Ocean Energy, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan for Nonexecutive Employees
(the "Plan") the right to amend the Plan;

WHEREAS,
the Board desires to amend the Plan;

NOW,
THEREFORE, Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended effective for calendar
year 2001 by substituting 2,750,000 for 2,500,000 in all
places in said section; for calendar years after 2001, 2,750,000
shall revert to 2,500,000 in all places in said section.

As
amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19

                 EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN TRUST AGREEMENT
                                    BETWEEN
            SIMMONS COMPANY AND STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY

                                   Amendment

         Pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan Trust
Agreement between Simmons Company and State Street Bank and Trust Company dated
as of the second day of September 1997 (the "Trust Agreement"), Simmons Company
(the "Company"), with the consent of State Street Bank and Trust Company as
trustee under the Trust Agreement (the "Trustee"), hereby amends (the
"Amendment") the Trust Agreement by renumbering Sections 11.6 (relating to
headings of articles) and 11.7 (relating to the execution of counterparts) as
Sections 11.7 and 11.8, respectively, and adding a new Section 11.6 to read in
its entirety as follows, effective as of January 1, 2003:

         "11.6 Reference is made to the transactions contemplated by the ESOP
Stock Sale Agreement dated as of November 21, 2003 by and among the Company, THL
Bedding Company and Street Bank and Trust Company, solely in its capacity as
trustee of the Simmons Company Employee Stock Ownership Trust (the "Sale
Agreement"). Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the
contrary, the Trustee shall have the power, authority and discretion to enter
into the Sale Agreement and consummate the transactions contemplated therein.
The Trustee shall have the independent authority to execute the Sale Agreement
and consummate the transactions contemplated therein, and shall not need any
direction, written or otherwise, from either the Company or the Committee."

         Except to the extent specifically amended by this Amendment, the Trust
Agreement shall remain unmodified. This Amendment may be executed in two or more
counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument, and all signatures need not appear
on any one counterpart.

         [The remainder of this page has intentionally been left blank]

<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Simmons Company has caused its officer duly
authorized thereto to execute on its behalf this instrument of amendment this
16th day of December, 2003.

                                            SIMMONS COMPANY

                                        By: /s/ William S. Creekmuir
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            William S. Creekmuir
                                            Executive Vice President and CFO

The Trustee hereby consents to the foregoing amendment
effective as of the effective date set forth above:

STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, as TRUSTEE

By: /s/ Sydney Marzeotti
    -----------------------------
    Sydney Marzeotti
    Vice President

                                      -2-
---

---

# EXHIBIT 13.2

|Certification
of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 USC§1350,as adopted pursuant
to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In
connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004
of Matav-Cable Systems Media Ltd. (the Company) as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) on the date hereof (the
Report), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Tal Peres, Chief Financial Officer,
certify that:

1.
          the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities 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.

Date: June 30, 2005

|/s/ Tal Peres
Tal PeresChief Financial Officer
|------------------------------------------------------------



---

---