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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              94
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,165
<PP&E>                                          45,363
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,886,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,044,736
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,528
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                76,308
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (95,994)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (95,994)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (95,994)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)


</TABLE>
# C_2004300EN.01005201.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/52

---

Action brought on 6 October 2004 by Vittoria Tebaldi and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-415/04)

(2004/C 300/101)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 October 2004 by Vittoria Tebaldi, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), Vicente Tejero Gazo, residing in Sterrebeek (Belgium), Victor González Martínez, residing in Brussels, and Alessandro Giovannetti, residing in Ernster (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Fréderic Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the list of officials promoted in the 2003 promotions procedure insofar as that list does not include the names of the applicants and, by way of an ancillary measure, annul the preparatory measures for that decision;
  in the alternative, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the list of officials promoted in the 2003 promotions procedure insofar as that list does not include the names of the applicants and, by way of an ancillary measure, annul the preparatory measures for that decision;

in the alternative,

| — | annul the award of promotion points in the 2003 promotions procedure inter alia following recommendations from the promotion committees; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the award of promotion points in the 2003 promotions procedure inter alia following recommendations from the promotion committees;

| — | make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay them. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay them.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in this case challenge the refusal of the appointing authority to promote them to a higher grade in the 2003 promotions procedure.

In support of their claims they plead the infringement:

| — | of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and its general implementing rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and its general implementing rules;

| — | of the administrative guide entitled ‘Appraisal and Promotion of Officials’; |
| --- | --- |

—

of the administrative guide entitled ‘Appraisal and Promotion of Officials’;

| — | of the principles of non-discrimination and the prohibition on arbitrary procedures and of the obligation to state reasons for measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

of the principles of non-discrimination and the prohibition on arbitrary procedures and of the obligation to state reasons for measures;

| — | of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and |
| --- | --- |

—

of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and

| — | of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

—

of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials.

---
# C_2004251EN.01000901.xml

| 9.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 May 2004 in the case of Robert Hans Conijn against Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte-Altstadt

(Case C-346/04)

(2004/C 251/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) of 26 May 2004, received at the Court Registry on 12 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Robert Hans Conijn against Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte-Altstadt on the following question:

Is a situation whereby a national of another Member State with restricted tax liability in Germany, unlike a person with unrestricted tax liability, may not deduct from his total income as special expenditure the costs incurred by him in obtaining tax advice contrary to Article 52 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?

---
From: Flanders, Phillip

To: jlapcev@firstenergycorp.com

Cc: Jordan, Ronald; Schroeder, Cuc; Thomas Finseth

Subject: RE: Follow up to comments on proposed Steam Electric effluent guidelines

Date: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:38:16 AM

Good Morning Joe,

Thank you for submitting additional data from Hatfield’s Ferry. We believe that this will be helpful

for evaluating comments regarding treatment of FGD wastewater. We would like to ask you some

follow-up questions to ensure that we understand the submitted data. We understand that it may

be difficult to locate some records because of the deactivation of the facility, however we would

appreciate any input that you can offer.

These are the specific questions we would appreciate your input on regarding the Excel Spreadsheet

that you sent us a couple of weeks ago.

1. What method was used for Arsenic in column D (AS - Arsenic) and Column E (HGTGEO -

Mercury, Trace, Geochemical Labs)? The MDL is included on the spreadsheet, but we don't know

what the quantitation limit and the reporting limit are.

2. In Column D (AS - Arsenic) one value is reported as <MDL and several are reported as 0.

What exactly does a reported value of "0" mean? Were these samples also below the MDL? Does

this mean the sample was a nondetect?

3. In Column E (HGTGEO - Mercury, Trace, Geochemical Labs) several values are reported as

0. What exactly does a reported value of "0" mean? Were these samples also below the MDL?

Does this mean the sample was a nondetect?

4. What is the difference between Column F and Column G, both of which are labeled Hg

(245.7)? Is the unit on Column G a typo? Should they both be ug/L? (The same numbers are

reported in the two columns, but the units are different) Why is the sample from 9/17/2013 listed

as below MDL in Column F and zero in Column G?

5. What is different about the samples reported between 7/7/2009 and 11/29/2011 and

11/6/2012 and 12/10/2013? Decommissioning Hatfield's Ferry only accounts for data acquired after

10/6/2013. The samples from 11/6/2012 onwards do not have sample numbers. Was a different

method or a different laboratory used? Are these values in different units?

Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer,

Phillip Flanders, Ph.D.

Environmental Engineer
Engineering and Analysis Division

Office of Science and Technology

Office of Water

Mail Code 4303T

(202) 566-8323
Ex-99.1 a)
                                                               DELOITTE & TOUCHE

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON
COMPLIANCE WITH UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION

PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS

Audit Committee of the Board of Directors
Washington Mutual, Inc.
Seattle, Washington

We have examined management's assertion about Washington Mutual, Inc.'s (the
Company) compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR
MORTGAGE BANKERS (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001, included
in the accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's
compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 2001, is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche

March 6, 2002
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of CN Bancorp, Inc. (the
      “Company”) certifies that to the best of his knowledge the accompanying Annual
      Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully
      complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.








/s/
      Michael T. Storm





Michael
      T. Storm


Chief
      Financial Officer


March
      6,
      2007








This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
      is
      not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document,
      and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any reason
      other
      than as specifically required by law.
Exhibit
      32.2


**Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 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, 2005 (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 and Exchange Commission, this
      certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.





Dated:
      October 24, 2005  /s/
      Frank C. Marchisello, Jr.


Frank C.
      Marchisello, Jr.


Vice
      President, Treasurer & Assistant Secretary of Tanger GP Trust


Sole General
      Partner of the Registrant
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 10.6

                            Schedule to Form Interim
                          Management Agreement with NHP

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
      Management Firm                 Tenant                  Known As       Location               Owner               Master Lease
      ---------------                 ------                  --------       --------               -----               ------------
<S>                            <C>                       <C>                 <C>               <C>                      <C>
Balanced Care at Hilliard,     Elder Care Operators of   Outlook Pointe at   Hilliard, OH      Nationwide Health          Migratory
Inc. and Elder Care Operators  Hilliard, LLC             Heritage Lakes                        Properties, Inc.
of Hilliard, LLC

Balanced Care at Lakemont      Elder Care Operators of   Outlook Pointe at   Bridgeville, PA   Nationwide Health          Migratory
Farms, Inc. and Elder Care     Lakemont Farms, LLC       Lakemont Farms                        Properties, Inc. and MLD
Operators of Lakemont Farms,                                                                   Delaware Trust
LLC

Balanced Care at York, Inc.    Elder Care Operators of   Outlook Pointe at   York, PA          Nationwide Health          Migratory
and Elder Care Operators of    York, LLC                 York                                  Properties, Inc. and MLD
York, LLC                                                                                       Delaware Trust
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   2
<TABLE>
<S>                            <C>                        <C>                 <C>               <C>                       <C>
Balanced Care at Hagerstown,   C&G Healthcare of          Outlook Pointe at   Hagerstown, MD    Nationwide Health         Cumberland
Inc. and C&G Healthcare of     Hagerstown, L.L.C.         Hagerstown                            Properties, Inc.
Hagerstown, L.L.C.

Balanced Care at Pensacola,    C&G Healthcare of          Outlook Pointe at   Pensacola, FL     Nationwide Health         Migratory
Inc.                           Pensacola, L.L.C.          Pensacola                             Properties, Inc.

Balanced Care at Tallahassee,  C&G Healthcare of          Outlook Pointe at   Tallahassee, FL   Nationwide Health         Migratory
Inc.                           Tallahassee, L.L.C.        Tallahassee                           Properties, Inc.

Balanced Care at Teay's        C&G Healthcare of Teay's   Outlook Pointe at   Hurricane, WV     Nationwide Health         Cumberland
Valley, Inc.                   Valley, L.L.C.             Teay's Valley                         Properties, Inc.
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 6769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02476]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act Of 1993--Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 11, 2014, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Cable Television 
Laboratories, Inc. (``CableLabs'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, TDS Baja Broadband, Alamogordo, NM, has 
been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and CableLabs intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On August 8, 1988, CableLabs filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on September 7, 1988 (53 FR 34593).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 14, 
2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on September 19, 2014 (79 FR 56404).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-02476 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffConsolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses (NUREG-1556)

# Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Portable Gauge Licenses, Final Report (NUREG-1556, Volume 1, Revison 2)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1556, Volume 1, Revision 2 (PDF – 8.32 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2016**Date Published:** June 2016

**Prepared by:**J. CookT. HerreraB. JuranS. LodhiK. McDanielJ.R. MullauerM. Reichard

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This technical report contains information intended to provide program-specific guidance and assist applicants and licensees in preparing applications for materials licenses for portable gauges. In particular, it describes the types of information needed to complete U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Form 313, "Application for Materials License." This document describes both the methods acceptable to the NRC license reviewers in implementing the regulations and the techniques used by the reviewers in evaluating the application to determine whether the proposed activities are acceptable for licensing purposes.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
DEPARTMENT OF THE AI R FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY

16 Jul 15

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/ARM-100

FROM: HQ AFFSA/XOF

 6500 South MacArthur Blvd

 Bldg 4 

 Oklahoma City, OK 73169-6918

SUBJECT: 14 CFR Exemption 7687G Addendum (Docket No. FAA-2001-9501)

14 CFR Exemption 7687 was granted to the United States Air Force on 3 Jan 2002 and

exempts the USAF from the provisions of Section 91.209 (a)(1) and (b). The exemption was last 

renewed on 2 May 13 (7687G) and will expire 30 Nov 15. 

Since this is a long-standing exemption, the Air Force respectfully requests a 3-yr

extension with no changes to the current policy.

Please contact me with any questions at e-mail: hqaffsa.xof@us.af.mil or 

(405) 582-6087. Thank you for your assistance.

7/16/2015

X

ANDREW B. KREBS, Maj, USAF

Assistant Chief, Flight Directives

Signed by: KREBS.ANDREW.B.1232714219
#### Livingston Isbell *v.*Salathiel Stone.

Where judgment is rendered in tlie court below upon a case agreed,»,, which is defectively stated, it will be reversed upon appeal. '

This was an action on the case against the defendant, as sheriff of Stokes, for making a false return to an exe*411cution which issued at the instance of the plaintiff, against one W. H. S. The record certified to this court, contained no entry of any pleas by the defendant.

On the Fall Circuit of 1831, a case agreed was submitted to Danier, Judge, who gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. It is not thought to be necessary to state the facts set forth in the case.

No counsel appeared for either party,

Daniel, Judge.

The case agreed by the parties, is so imperfectly made up, that we deem it improper to give an opinion upon the points made in it. If we should cometo "the conclusion, that the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment, thecasestates no sum for which it should be entered. We cannot say, that the slave concerning whom it is alleged the defendant made a false return, is worth the sum claimed by the plaintiff. There is no verdict of the jury — no sum of money agreed by the parties that the judgment should be entered up for, in case the plaintiff should be entitled to recover. The case is imperfect in another respect; it states that *Stulfs*and *Hauser*contracted with Hm. *II Sheppard*for the slave in the county of Surry, but does not state whether the contract was then executed, by a delivery of the slave, or whether there was a bill of sale given in Surry, or whether the contract was barely executory. For these defects, we think the judgment should be reversed, and the case remanded.

Per Curiam. — JudgmeNt reversed.
# C_2004284EN.01001103.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Poitiers (2ème Chambre Civile) by order of that court of 21 September 2004 in the case of Conseil Général de la Vienne against Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects

(Case C-419/04)

(2004/C 284/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Cour d'Appel de Poitiers (2ème Chambre Civile) (Court of Appeal, Poitiers, France – 2nd Civil Chamber) of 21 September 2004 received at the Court Registry on 30 September 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Conseil Général de la Vienne against Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects on the following question:

‘Is Article 871 of the Community Customs Code relating to the recovery of the amount of the customs debt to be interpreted as establishing an essential and obligatory procedure, non-compliance with which will result in nullity, if the national customs authorities have expressed doubts, at any time during the recovery procedure concerning a person liable for payment acting in good faith, as regards the precise scope of the criteria relating to the recovery or the remission of duties resulting from a customs debt which has been eluded because it was not entered in the accounts on the date when that debt should have given rise to recovery (debt relating to the possible incorporation into the purchase price of audiovisual equipment supplied by a Canadian supplier of a flat-rate charge compulsorily included in the entry price to the amusement park in which the equipment is operated, whether or not the visitor who paid the charge made use of the equipment)?’

---
#### Albert Paper & Products Company, Plaintiff, vs. Schmidt, Receiver, Respondent: Byrne Brothers Company, Impleaded, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Lehr & Treis,*attorneys, and *J. Elmer Lehr*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *W. G. Cavanaugh, Jr.,*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Orders affirmed.