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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS
THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001004317
<NAME>                        IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1.000
<CASH>                                                    2,312
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            67,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                             (2,738)
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         89,131
<PP&E>                                                  274,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                          (67,184)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          806,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    71,157
<BONDS>                                                 523,154
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                    150
<OTHER-SE>                                              193,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            806,018
<SALES>                                                  99,484
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         99,484
<CGS>                                                    52,610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            88,292
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       12,332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (1,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               (826)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (314)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (314)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005031EN.01002103.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/21

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 9 November 2004

in Case T-252/03: Fédération nationale de l'industrie et des commerces en gros des viandes (FNICGV) v Commission of the Euoropean Communities (1)

1

(Competition - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Market in beef and veal - Action for annulment - Unlimited jurisdiction - Time-limit for bringing application - Introduction out of time - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 31/43)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-252/03: Fédération nationale de l'industrie et des cinnerces en gros des viands (FNICGV), established in Paris (France), represented by P. Abegg and E. Prigent, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by French Republic (Agents: R. Abraham, G. de Bergues and F. Million, with an address for service in Luxembourg), against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver and F. Lelièvre, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – action for annulment of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 – French beef) (OJ 2003 L 209, p. 12) and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the amount of that fine – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 9 November 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant and the Commission shall bear their own costs relating to the main action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the Commission shall bear their own costs relating to the main action.

| 3. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 4. | The French Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The French Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

1

---
*December 6, 1927.*

#### Thorne, Respondent, vs. Guttenstein, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county dated January 24, 1927: E. T. Fairchild, Judge.

Action against indorser on promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.

For the appellant: *Schmitz, Wild & Gross*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Kopp & Brunckhorst*of Platteville.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
From: Belden, Roy S (GE Capital) [roy.belden@ge.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 8:10 PM

To: Oquendo, Ana

Cc: Forney, Katy; 'rick.waggoner@complianceops.com'; 

'scott_osbourn@golder.com'; 'dlarocca@golder.com'; 

'amorrison@hgslaw.com'; Mathur, Ankur (GE Capital)

Subject: RE: Clarification needed

Attachments: Shady Hills GHG BACT Tables 4 Gen Update 6 26 13.xlsx

Ms. Oquendo,

We intend to permit a unit rated at 2,500 kW. The reference to a 1,000 kW unit was a mistake in our 

application to EPA Region 4. As a result, we have updated the EPA GHG Application Table 4 to be 

consistent with the fuel heat input of the 2,500 kW unit per the FDEP application and final FDEP PSD 

permit. Attached is a revised version of Table 4.

The EFS Shady Hills team is working on responses to your other two inquiries, and we expect to be able 

to provide you with responses within the next week to 10 days. In the meantime, please let us know if 

you have any additional questions.

Regards, Roy

Roy S. Belden

EFS Shady Hills LLC 

c/o GE Energy Financial Services

800 Long Ridge Road

Stamford, CT 06927

T: +1 203-357-6820

M: +1 203-240-4321

roy.belden@ge.com

From: Oquendo, Ana [mailto:Oquendo.Ana@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 3:15 PM

To: Belden, Roy S (GE Capital)

Cc: Forney, Katy; 'rick.waggoner@complianceops.com'; 'scott_osbourn@golder.com'; 

'dlarocca@golder.com'; 'amorrison@hgslaw.com'; Mathur, Ankur (GE Capital)

Subject: Clarification needed

Good day,

As review of the GHG PSD permit for Shady Hills Generating Station continues, EPA Region 4 needs 

further clarification on the following matter:

1. In the GHG PSD application, the emergency generator is described as having a rating of 1,000 

kW; however, the construction permit issued by FDEP describes the emergency generator (EU 

007) as having a rating of 2,500 kW. Can you provide clarification as to what is the correct rating 

of the proposed emergency generator?
Thanks,

Ana M. Oquendo

Environmental Engineer

Air Permits Section, APTMD

EPA Region 4

phone 404-562-2476

fax 404-562-9019

email oquendo.ana@epa.gov
# C_2005143EN.01003006.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/30

---

Removal from the register of Case C-277/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 143/56)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 10 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-277/04 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

---

(1)  OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                    3,660
<SECURITIES>                                  0       
<RECEIVABLES>                             9,291
<ALLOWANCES>                                122       
<INVENTORY>                                   0       
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         19,662       
<PP&E>                                    1,690       
<DEPRECIATION>                            1,208       
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           24,201       
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    14,329       
<BONDS>                                       0       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0       
<PREFERRED>                                   0       
<COMMON>                                     54       
<OTHER-SE>                                9,752 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             24,201       
<SALES>                                       0       
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         19,710       
<CGS>                                    18,732       
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            20,941       
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0       
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           22       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (1,253)      
<INCOME-TAX>                               (597)      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (656)      
<DISCONTINUED>                                0       
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0       
<CHANGES>                                     0       
<NET-INCOME>                               (656)      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.12)      
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.11)      
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000, AND IS
     QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                    AUG-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                                 52,961
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          31,716
<ALLOWANCES>                                              640
<INVENTORY>                                             6,346
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       96,633
<PP&E>                                                 62,359
<DEPRECIATION>                                         16,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        159,391
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               1,147,891
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                               17,794
<OTHER-SE>                                         (1,006,294)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          159,391
<SALES>                                                45,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       45,970
<CGS>                                                  43,769
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          43,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      532,518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (530,317)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               (0)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (530,317)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (530,317)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.03)


</TABLE>
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2191 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to revise certain regulations relating 

to aircraft boarding, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2017 

Mr. DUNN (for himself, Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas, Mr. BUCHANAN, and Mr. 

NEAL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to revise certain 

regulations relating to aircraft boarding, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Secure Equity in Air5 line Transportation Act of 2017’’ or the ‘‘SEAT Act of 

6 2017’’. 

7 SEC. 2. AIRCRAFT BOARDING. 

8 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

9 of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue a 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2191 IH

1 final rule to revise part 250 of title 14, Code of Federal 

2 Regulations, to prohibit an air carrier from denying air 

3 transportation to a passenger on an oversold aircraft that 

4 the passenger has physically boarded based on the status 

5 of the passenger with respect to the priority rules and cri6 teria of the carrier for determining which passengers hold7 ing confirmed reserved space shall be denied boarding in 

8 the event that an insufficient number of volunteers come 

9 forward. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
---

Exhibit 13.2.

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

In connection with the Annual Report, as amended, of Meridian Co., Ltd. .
  (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
  In Beom Park, Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of
  the Company.





By: /s/ In Beom Par
  Name: In Beom Par
  Title: Director 
  Date: July 14, 2005

---
#### J. S. HEATH v. W. A. BISHOP.

A defendant, whose land has been sold by the sheriff, under an execution issuing without proper authority, and who has been dispossessed by the purchaser at the sheriff’s1 sale, under summary proceedings before a justice, has a right to have a writ of Restitution and to be put into the possession of his. land so. sold.

*(Perry*v. Twpper, 70 N. C. Rep. 538; and *same case,*71 37. 0. Rep. 380, cited and approved.)

Civil agtioN, originally commenced before a Justice of the Peace and carried by a Recordari to the Superior Court of TRANSYLVANIA comity, where it was tried before his Honor, Judge Qannon, at Fall Term, 1874.

The facts are substantially the following :

A judgment was obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant on the 22d day of May, 1871, for $11.22, which was docketed and thus became a judgment of the Superior Court, August 12th, 1871. Execution issued thereon to the sheriff of Transylvania, who levied it upon the land of the defendant, and sold the same at public sale, at which sale the plaintiff became the purchaser, takings deed from the sheriff’.

The defendant refusing to deliver up the possession, the plaintiff, under section 31, chapter 156, Acts of 1868-’69, instituted summary proceedings before a Justice of the Peace of the county for possession. At the trial, the defendant denied the right of the plaintiff to recover, but offering no evidence, *457the Justice gave judgment against him. From this judgment defendant prayed an appeal, paid the Justice his fees for such appeal and deposited a bond with the Clerk of the Superior Court. The record was sent up by the Justice of the Peace to the Superior Court, but the Clerk of that Court, not having received his fees, declined to enter the appeal on his docket, and returned the papers to the Magistrate.

As grounds of appeal, the defendant relied upon defects in the original summons ; the fact that the judgment was for a less sum than $25, and therefore, he insisted, could not be docketed, and for want of jurisdiction. The defendant offered no evidence attacking the validity of the first judgment, or the regularity of the sheriff’s sale under the same, which was admitted, with the exception of the right to docket the Justice’s judgment for $11.22.

The Justice issued a writ of possession upon the return of the papers to him, and ousted the defendant, who at once petitioned for a writ of *reeordari,*which was granted. Upon the return of the writ, and the cause coming on to be heard, his Honor, ordering the case to be docketed, reversed the Justice’s judgment and directed that a writ of restitution issue. From this judgment, the plaintiff appealed.

*M. E. Carter,*for appellant.

*A. T. ds T. F. Davidson,*contra.

Reade, J.

In *Perry*v. *Tupper,*70 N. C. Rep., 538, and in the same case, 71 N. C. Rep., 380 and 383, it was decided that a party put out of the possession of land by an abuse of the process of law, is entitled to a writ of restitution as a matter of course, unless some new matter has intervened in the meantime. And that is decisive of this case.

There is no error. This will be certified.

Pee Oueiam. J udgment affirmed.
*December 3, 1929.*

#### Yochum, Respondent, vs. Montgomery and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Lines, Spooner & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Howard A. Hartman,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *I. B. Padway*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
mmer Power Station 

Dynegy Zimmer, LLC 

Stack: 1242'MSL I SOO'AGL 

Class G Airspace, SFC-1200'AGL 

ithin CVG Mode C 30NM 

rt Power Station 

Dynegy Stuart, LLC 

k: 1332'MSL I 800'AGL 

lass G Airspace to 1200'AGL 

Radio: CTAF 123.0 122.8 

Fleming Mason (FGX) 

lass E, 700'AGL and above 

lass G Airspace to 1200'AGL 

Radio: CTAF 122.8 123.0 

alamon (AMT) 

Class E, 700'AGL and above
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1084

JOHN EUGENE LEAKE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Charlottesville. Glen E. Conrad, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00101-GEC-JCH)

Submitted: April 16, 2020 Decided: April 21, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Eugene Leake, Appellant Pro Se. Brittany Johanna Gigliotti, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Eugene Leake appeals the district court’s orders accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his Social Security agency appeal 

as untimely filed and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The district court referred 

this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate 

judge recommended dismissing Leake’s action as untimely filed and advised Leake that 

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a 

district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Leake has waived appellate review by 

failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper 

notice. Further, the district court properly denied Leake’s Rule 59(e) motion. Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court’s orders.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# State Technical Committees

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  State Technical Committees 

Every state has an NRCS State Technical Committee. The State Technical Committee advises the State Conservationist on technical guidelines necessary to implement the conservation provisions of the Farm Bill. 

## What is a State Technical Committee?

State Technical Committees serve in an advisory capacity to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and other agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the implementation of the natural resources conservation provisions of Farm Bill legislation. Committees are intended to include members from a wide variety of natural resource and agricultural interests.Chaired by the NRCS State Conservationist in each state, these committees are composed of representatives from Federal and State natural resource agencies, American Indian Tribes, agricultural and environmental organizations, and agricultural producers.

The Committees meet regularly to provide information, analysis, and recommendations to appropriate USDA officials, who strongly consider their advice.  Individuals or groups wanting to participate as members on a State Technical Committee may submit requests to the State Conservationist explaining their interest and relevant credentials.

### More Information

The NRCS State Technical Committee policy defines the purpose, responsibilities, membership composition, etc of a Committee.

NRCS amended 7 CFR §610.24 applies.

See *Final Rule for Changes to Existing Programs* on the Federal Register website.

For information on your state's State Technical Committee, go to your state page.

##   Additional Documents

State Technical Committees Final Rule.pdf(71.7 KB)