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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the fiscal
1996 Consolidated Fiancial Statements of Ameriking, Inc. and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      828 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,667
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,530
<PP&E>                                          46,488 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 155,037 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,471 
<BONDS>                                        107,830 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           30,000 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                             9 
<OTHER-SE>                                         424
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   155,037
<SALES>                                        203,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               203,753
<CGS>                                           66,071
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  181,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,334
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,628
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,556)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,942)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (5,055)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,997)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (10.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (9.01)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005019EN.01002201.xml

| 22.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/22

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 10 November 2004

in Case T-396/02: August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a sweet - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 19/47)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-396/02: August Storck KG, established in Berlin, represented by H. Wrage-Molkenthin, T. Reher, A. Heise and I. Rohr, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: B. Müller and G. Schneider) – action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2002 (Case R 187/2001-4), refusing registration of a three-dimensional mark comprised of the shape of a light-brown sweet – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 November 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1
                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer

         Pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as created  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, the  undersigned  officer of Tanger GP Trust,  sole
general   partner  of  Tanger   Properties   Limited   Partnership   ("Operating
Partnership") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         (i) the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the  Operating
     Partnership  for  the  quarterly  period  ended  September  30,  2003  (the
     "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
     15(d), as applicable,  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
     and

         (ii) the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Operating Partnership.

Pursuant to the rules and  regulations  of the Securities  Exchange  Commission,
this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.


     Dated: November 12, 2003   By:/s/ Stanley K. Tanger
                                   Stanley K. Tanger
                                   Chief Executive Officer of Tanger GP Trust
                                   Sole General Partner of the Registrant
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release #06-20

Contact: (703) 808-5050 Nov. 13, 2020

NRO launches national security payload from Cape Canaveral

The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) successfully launched its NROL-101 

mission aboard a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket from Space Launch 

Complex-41, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida at 5:32 p.m. EST on 

November 13. 

NROL-101 was the agency’s fourth launch in 2020. The mission carried a classified 

national security payload designed, built and operated by the NRO in support of its 

overhead reconnaissance mission. 

“We’re excited to be back at CCAFS with another successful launch alongside our 

partners at ULA, the 45th Space Wing, and the U.S. Space Force Space and Missile 

Systems Center. The successful launch of NROL-101 is another example of the NRO’s 

commitment to constantly evolving our crucial national security systems to support our 

defense and intelligence partners,” said U.S. Space Force Colonel Chad Davis, Director 

of the NRO’s Office of Space Launch. 

“2020 has been an especially challenging year for the launch and space community 

given the COVID-19 pandemic. I’m continually impressed by our partners and our NRO 

team members on their ability to find new and innovative ways to collaborate in this 

environment and ensure we are meeting our mission requirements while prioritizing the 

safety, security and health of our entire launch team,” said Davis.

Data collected by NRO’s national security systems is used to provide intelligence to 

senior policy makers, the Intelligence Community and Department of Defense, as well as 

U.S. allied partners. Additionally, information collected by NRO systems can be used to 

assist emergency and disaster relief efforts in the U.S. and around the world.

-NROThe NRO is the Intelligence Community element and a Department of Defense agency 

responsible for developing, acquiring, launching, and operating America’s intelligence 

satellites to meet the national security needs of our nation.
#### Wladyslaw Czapski *vs.*Sun Oil Company & another.

Suffolk.

December 5, 1938.

May 23, 1939.

Present: Field, C.J., Lummus, Qua, Dolan, & Ronan, JJ.

*Nuisance. License.*

A gasoline filling station duly licensed by the proper public authorities and operated in a reasonable and careful manner was not a nuisance to an adjoining landowner.

Bill in equity, filed in the Superior Court on December 3, 1937.

The suit was heard by *T. J. Hammond,*J.

*J. K. Jerome,*(A. *Sigel*with him,) for the plaintiff.

*W. F. Farr,*(D. *G. Allen*with him,) for the defendants.

Lummus, J.

The plaintiff appeals from a final decree dismissing his bill to restrain the operation by the defendants of a gasoline filling station adjoining the plaintiff’s tenement houses, the kitchens of which overlook it. The judge found no unnecessary noise or odor. But the evidence is reported, and we are bound to make findings for ourselves, giving to the findings of the judge the weight required by a rule too familiar to need restatement. *Trade Mutual Liability Ins. Co.*v. *Peters,*291 Mass. 79, 83, 84. *Spiegel*v. *Beacon Participations, Inc.*297 Mass. 398, 407-408. *Smith*v. *Stratton,*302 Mass. 17, 19-20.

The evidence showed some noise, and an objectionable odor, but nothing beyond the natural incidents of the reasonable and careful conduct of a gasoline filling station. Since it is conceded that the defendants were licensed by the proper public authorities to maintain such a station, the plaintiff cannot restrain as a nuisance the doing in a reasonable and careful manner of the very act licensed. *Sawyer,*v. *Davis,*136 Mass. 239. *White*v. *Kenney,*157 Mass. 12. *Murtha*v. *Lovewell,*166 Mass. 391. *Commonwealth*v. *Packard,*185 Mass. 64. *Levin*v. *Goodwin,*191 Mass. 341. *Strachan*v. *Beacon Oil Co.*251 Mass. 479, 487, *187488. *Marshall*v. *Holbrook,*276 Mass. 341, 346. See also *St. James Building Corp.*v. *Commissioner of Public Safety,*260 Mass. 548; *Hanauer*v. *State Fire Marshal,*271 Mass. 506. Compare *Hakkila*v. *Old Colony Broken Stone & Concrete Co.*264 Mass. 447; *Tortorella*v. H. *Traiser & Co. Inc.*284 Mass. 497, 501.

*Decree affirmed with costs.*
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF BRENT R. FREI 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 of Onyx Software Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Brent R. Frei, 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 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.

Date: March 12, 2004

By:       /s/ BRENT R. FREI
    -------------------------------
            BRENT R. FREI
     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
        CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
*June 24, 1935.*

#### Schmidt and wife, Appellants, vs. Sternhagen and wife, Respondents.

For the appellants: *Fox & Fox*of Chilton.

For the respondents: *Barber, Keefe, Patri & Horwits*of Oshkosh.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005091EN.01000301.xml

| 15.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3708 — Apollo/Directv/Hughes Network Systems)

(2005/C 91/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 23 March 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3708. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3708. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/28

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 28 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
Re: Ozone background 

Susan Stone to: Laura Blackburn 02/11/2010 08:38 AM

Cc: Tricia Crabtree

Ms. Blackburn: I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. You asked me to provide you with some 

information on policy relevant background. I was not sure how technical a response you wanted, so 

decided to provide more information rather than less. This information should answer your questions. I 

am attaching the ozone Response to Comments Document (RTC - from the 2008 review) and the page 

numbers of relevant comments and responses. I'm also attaching the Staff Paper and providing page 

numbers for the short section on background. The remote monitor site in California most influenced by 

policy relevant background concentrations of ozone is called Trinidad Head - you will see it referenced 

frequently.

Ozone RTC

1. Section IIA5, comments 20 - 22, pages 92 - 97. Comment/Response 20 is the most relevant; the third 

bullet in the comment is about estimates of background levels using the Trinidad Head monitor.

2. Section IIB4, comments 2 - 4, pages 129 - 131. Comment 4 expresses policy relevant background 

levels in terms of W126.

3. Section IID, comment 3, page 143. WRT the monitoring proposal, we indicate that increased numbers 

of rural monitors will help with the estimation of background levels of ozone.

Staff Paper

1. PRB is discussed on pages 2-48 to 2-55 (4 pages of figures). It is interesting to note that we did 

estimate PRB for the 12 urban areas, and that GEOS-CHEM model estimates PRB on a grid across the 

US (last paragraph, p. 2-55). 

Again , I apologize for taking so long to respond. I responded to most enquiries with a Blackberry while 

on travel but could not do that with your question, and so put it off. Hope this information is useful. Susan

Susan Lyon Stone

Ambient Standards Group l US EPA (C504-06) l Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: 919-541-1146 l Fax: 919-541-0237 l HSD Phone 919-966-6226

Laura Blackburn Susan, 02/05/2010 10:25:59 AM

From: Laura Blackburn <laura2blackburn@yahoo.com>

To: Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/05/2010 10:25 AM

Subject: Ozone background

Susan,

You may have heard that the subject of how background is measured came up at the Houston hearing, and the he

ozone standard. I think I remember her explanation, but I'm not sure. Would you mind sending me the protocol

what that level was determined to be? (I think it was .012 to .035 ppm, but I'm not sure.)

Many thanks,

Laura Blackburn,
Air Quality Chair,

League of Women Voters of Texas
NRCS Conservation Practice Effects - Network Diagram July 2021

Amendments for Treatment of 

Agricultural Waste (591)

Waste Storage Facility (313)

Waste Transfer (634)

#. Created by practice

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Roofs and Covers (367)

LEGEND

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

I.7 (+) Soil 

health 

I.10 (+/-) Net 

returns

C.2 (+) Air quality

I.9 (+) Potential 

income

I.4 (+) Alternatives for 

nutrients or solid waste 

utilization

D.1 (+) Ability to manipulate 

waste stream and handle 

wastes as separated solids 

and/or nutrients and liquid 

components

I.14 (+) Operational 

efficiency/ flexibility

C.1 (+) Water quality

C.3 (+) Public/private 

health and safety, 

community relations

I.12 (-)

Odor

I.6 (+) Organic 

matter content in 

land-applied waste

I.11 (-) Cost of 

future regulatory 

compliance

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus (+) 

or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon the 

resource, not whether the effect is 

beneficial or adverse.

I.5 (-) Nutrient transport to 

receiving waters

I.3 (-)

Maintenance

costs

Waste Separation Facility (632) 

1. Physical structure to partition solids and/or nutrients from a 

waste stream

D.2 (+) Cost of 

installation, operation, 

and management

I.2 (-) Wear and 

tear on irrigation 

equipment

Initial setting: Farmstead where there is a need to 

separate solids from liquids in a waste stream using 

mechanical separation

Composting Facility (317)

I.1 (+) Nutrientladen liquid

available for

irrigation

Start

Nutrient Management (590)

Waste Recycling (633)

I.13 (-) 

Greenhouse 

gas emissions

I.8 (+) Plant 

health and vigor, 

productivity

Pathway

C.4 (+/-) Income 

and income 

stability (individuals 

and community)
1 ALPHONSO LOVELL JAMES

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4335

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 15, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mallory D. Cooper , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joanna A. Mauer, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, At torney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF

, BILBREY

, and M.K. THOMAS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of Daou Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, John A. Roberts, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary 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 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/ John A. Roberts                  
|John A. Roberts                      
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
|November 12, 2004
HomeRadioactive WasteLow-Level Waste DisposalLicensing

# Locations of Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities

The four active, licensed low-level waste disposal facilities are located in Agreement States (see map). Additional information about the facilities may be found at the Web sites maintained by the respective Agreement States.
        -  **EnergySolutions Barnwell Operations, located in Barnwell, South Carolina**	Currently, Barnwell accepts waste from the Atlantic compact states (Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina). Barnwell is licensed by the State of South Carolina to dispose of Class A, B, and C waste. 
        -  **U.S. Ecology, located in Richland, Washington**	Richland accepts waste from the Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts. Richland is licensed by the State of Washington to dispose of Class A, B, and C waste. 
        -  **EnergySolutions Clive Operations, located in Clive, Utah**	Clive accepts waste from all regions of the United States. Clive is licensed by the State of Utah for Class A waste only. 
        -  **Waste Control Specialists (WCS), LLC, located near Andrews, Texas**	WCS accepts waste from the Texas Compact generators and outside generators with permission from the Compact. WCS is licensed by the State of Texas to dispose of Class A, B, and C waste. 

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 12, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Locations of Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities
          - Low-Level Waste Disposal Statistics
          - Low-Level Waste Compacts

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 12, 2020
SERVED: MARCH 18, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

GARY CARROLL 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0547 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

·-.. ,,·, ;, 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 201280150142) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on 1he atmched Servi( ' ~-·-· • .-.----· 

......_-~--.. -:- .~/~" 

Attachment - Service List 

Ronnie A. Yoder ,--"' 

Chief Administrative Law Jud 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Gary D. Carroll, Respondent 

P.O. Box 1163 

Highland City, FL 33846 

ONE COPY 

Andrea Michelle Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia A venue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0547 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-