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
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OF CAPSTAR HOTEL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          83,429
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,586
<ALLOWANCES>                                       577
<INVENTORY>                                      4,654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,829
<PP&E>                                         950,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,124,642
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,593
<BONDS>                                        492,771
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           249
<OTHER-SE>                                     519,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,124,642
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               316,393
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               126,433
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,063
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,911
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,152
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,092)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,060
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
        

</TABLE>
#### Ritchie and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

For the appellants: *Riley & Ohm*of Madison.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *John W. Reynolds,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan*and *Frank W. Kuehl,*assistant attorneys general.

For the respondent Jones: *Kopp & Brunckhorst*of Platte-ville.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Conservation Stewardship Program - Grassland Conservation Initiative Fiscal Year 2024 United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Code Practice Component Units Unit Cost

E300GCI Grassland Conservation Initiative Grassland Conservation Initiative Activity AC $18.00

CSP-Grassland Conservation Itiative Page 1 of 1 Arkansas - Fiscal Year 2024
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-384-CV

LASHUN RICHARDSON,	APPELLANT

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE

OF WILLIE RICHARDSON, DECEASED

	V.

OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS 	APPELLEES

CORPORATION, ET AL.	

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

	FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant LaShun Richardson, Representative of the Estate of Willie Richardson, Deceased, is attempting to appeal the trial court’s order granting his counsel’s motion to withdraw.2  On April 12, 2006, we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(a), that this court may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because it appears that the order is not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order.  We stated that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before April 24, 2006, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  Appellant has not filed a response.

	Appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders only if expressly provided by statute.  Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998).  Appellant has not directed us to, nor have we found, any statute allowing him to appeal the trial court’s order.  See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2005) (providing for appeal of certain interlocutory orders).  Because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). 

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: June 15, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2004 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/Jan W. Clark
---------------
Jan W. Clark
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2005


This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to CN Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by CN Bancorp, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TOMMY DUES

,

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

- 3387

_____________ ________________/

Opinion filed October 14, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mallory D. Cooper , Judge

.

Tommy Dues, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, SWANSON, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          44,772
<SECURITIES>                                    55,444
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,055
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,388
<PP&E>                                           7,632
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,078
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,847
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,087
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 412
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,373)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,373)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,373)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.92)


</TABLE>
March 24 , 2015

Mr. Brandon Batie

1373 Emerson Lane

Milford, OH 45150

Dear Mr. Batie :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your Feb ruary 3 , 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0293 ) , but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemp tion

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exempti on.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 742/2006

of 17 May 2006         

adapting certain fish quotas for 2006 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1), and in particular Article 23(4) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (2), and in particular Articles 4(2) and 5(1),

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quotas fixed in Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004, Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 and Regulation (EC) 52/2006 are increased as shown in Annex I or reduced as shown in Annex II.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 May 2006.

For the Commission

Joe BORG            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

(2)OJ L 115, 9.5.1996, p. 3.

(3)OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 860/2005 (OJ L 144, 8.6.2005, p. 1).

(4)OJ L 12, 14.1.2005, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1936/2005 (OJ L 311, 26.11.2005, p. 1).

(5)OJ L 16, 20.1.2006, p. 1.

(6)OJ L 16, 20.1.2006, p. 184.

----

ANNEX I

TRANSFERS ONTO 2006 QUOTAS

----

ANNEX II

DEDUCTIONS FROM 2006 QUOTAS

----
EXHIBIT 11

                                    KSW, INC.

                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                               OF INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      Three Months    Three Months     Nine Months     Nine Months
                                          Ended           Ended           Ended            Ended
                                      September 30,   September 30,   September 30,   September 30,
                                          2006            2005            2006            2005
                                      -------------   -------------   -------------   -------------
<S>                                   <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Net income                            $     785,000   $   1,262,000   $   1,749,000   $   1,715,000
                                      =============   =============   =============   =============

Income Per Share - Basic

Weighted average shares
 outstanding during the period            5,711,886       5,470,311       5,644,441       5,470,311
                                      =============   =============   =============   =============

Income per common share -
Basic                                 $         .14   $         .23   $         .31   $         .31
                                      =============   =============   =============   =============

Income  Per Share - Diluted

Weighted average shares
 outstanding during the period            5,711,886       5,470,311       5,644,441       5,470,311

Effect of stock options
 dilution                                   132,048          77,052         130,719               -
                                      -------------   -------------   -------------   -------------

Total shares outstanding for
 purposes of calculating diluted
 earnings                                 5,843,934       5,547,363       5,775,160       5,470,311
                                      =============   =============   =============   =============

Income  per common and
 common equivalent share -
 Diluted                              $         .13   $         .23   $         .30   $         .31
                                      =============   =============   =============   =============
</TABLE>
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Control , Brush Management, Early Successional Habitat Development/Mgt., Field Border, Forage and Biomass Planting, Forage Harvest Management, Forest Stand Improvement, Prescribed Burning, Prescribed Grazing, Range Planting, Restoration and Management of Rare or Declining Habitats, Riparian Forest Buffer, Riparian Herbaceous Cover, Tree/Shrub Establishment, Watering Facility.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TIMOTHY JAY ADAMS,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

HON. MAUREEN T. BEIRNE, AND HON. 

EVAN WILLIAMS,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 25 MM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2022, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is 

DENIED, and the Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the names of the jurists from the 

caption.
#### Levine, Respondent, vs. Mueller, imp., Appellant.

*April 29*

June *11, 1930.*

*635For the appellant there was a brief by *Wm. A. Schroeder*and *Jacob S. Rothstein,*and oral argument by *Mr. Rothstein*and *Mr. Nicholas T. Leipzig,*all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent there was a brief by *A. L. Skolnik,*attorney, and *S. G. Skolnik,*of counsel, both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *A. L. Skolnik.*

Stevens, J.

Plaintiff fully performed the service of a real-estate broker when he procured a purchaser ready, able, and willing to purchase the property for the price agreed upon by the parties. In procuring this purchaser he relied upon the statement of Mr. Oberst as to the size of the lot, as he had a right to do, because the defendant Mueller had referred him to Mr. Oberst as the one who would give him all information as to the property. It was the misrepresentation of Mr. Oberst, and not any act or default on the part of the plaintiff, that prevented the completion of the sale. Plaintiff should not be denied recovery merely because he relied upon the statement made by the one to whom defendant Mueller referred him for information as to the property.

The contract in question is not one which provides for the payment for services to be performed in the future, but one which obligates defendant Mueller, to pay an agreed sum in consideration of services performed before the agreement was signed, The note was given the plaintiff *636more than eight months before the case of *Hale v. Kreisel,*194 Wis. 271, 215 N. W. 227, was decided. At the time the service was rendered and the writing here in question signed, the plaintiff could have recovered upon *quantum meruit*upon the implied contract to pay for services rendered at the request of defendant Mueller and of his agent Oberst, under the interpretation given sec. 240.10 of the Statutes in *Seifert v. Dirk,*175 Wis. 220, 184 N. W. 698.

“Had the plaintiff sued for. his commission at the time the note was given he could have recovered judgment. The performance of the services and the foregoing of the right to collect at the time the note was given constituted good consideration for the note. The right to recover for services rendered was a right vested in the plaintjff which was not taken away by the subsequent change in the interpretation of sec. 240.10. *Nickoll v. Racine C. & S. Co.*194 Wis. 298, 216 N. W. 502, 504.” *Harris v. Petersen,*196 Wis. 310, 312, 220 N. W. 174.

The pleadings do not present any issue of negligence on the part of the plaintiff. That issue was not litigated in the trial court and will not be considered here.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
- Page 1
- Page 2
- Page 3
- Page 4
- Page 5
- Page 6
- Page 7
- Page 8
- Page 9
- Page 10
Argued and submitted August 24,

sentence on Counts I and II vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed October 10, 1990

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*STEVEN DEWEY McBRIDE, *Appellant.*

(C87-01-30192; CA A63139)

798 P2d 728

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Salem.

Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Yuan Xing Chen, Certified Law Student, Salem.

*642-aBefore Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*643PER CURIAM

In 1987, defendant was convicted in Multnomah County of one count of delivery and two counts of possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. On the first two counts, he was sentenced to two concurrent ten-year prison terms with a five-year minimum. Execution was suspended, and he was placed on probation for five years. Imposition of sentence was suspended on Count III, and he was placed on probation for five years. Probation was revoked in 1989, after defendant was convicted of kidnapping and assault in Clackamas County and sentenced to ten years, with a five-year minimum.

When defendant’s probation was revoked, the Multnomah County court ordered execution of the sentences on Counts I and II and imposed a ten-year sentence on Count III. It ordered that all three sentences run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the Clackamas County sentence.

The state concedes, correctly, that the court could not retroactively modify the sentences on Counts I and II to make them consecutive to the Clackamas County sentence. *State v. Stevens,*253 Or 563, 456 P2d 494 (1969). Although execution of those two sentences had been suspended, the sentences had been imposed in 1987 and could not be altered. They must run concurrently with the Clackamas County sentence. However, the court had authority to impose a sentence on Count III to run consecutively to the Clackamas County sentence. ORS 137.123; *State v. Monahan,*29 Or App 791, 564 P2d 1374 (1977).

Sentence on Counts I and II vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
    /s/ Pamela J. CraigPamela J. CraigChief Financial Officer of Accenture Ltd
(principal financial officer)  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
/ 


-dep 


west virginia department of environmental protection 

Executive Office Joe Manchin III, Governor 

601 57th Street SE Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretary 

Charleston, WV 25304 www.wvdep.org 

July 20, 2009 

Mr. William C. Early 

Acting Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region III (3RAOO) 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Re: 	 Revision to the West Virginia State 

Implementation Plan Pursuant to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Request For Approval 

Dear Administrator Early: 

On behalf of the State of West Virginia, I am herein submitting the 2009 legislative rule 

45CSR14 - Permits for Construction and Major Modification ofMajor Stationary Sources of 

Air Pollutionfor the Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration, effective June 1,2009, as a 

revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Also included in this submittal is appropriate 

documentation which validates that proper state and federal administrative procedural 

rulemaking requirements have been fulfilled. 

West Virginia requests that you approve this most recent version of 45CSR13 as a revision 

to the SIP, replacing the current version of 45CSR14 approved by EPA on December 4, 2006 at 

71FR64470. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, or require additional 

information, please contact John A. Benedict, Director ofthe Division of Air Quality at (304) 

926-0462. 

Sincerely, 

~~Cabinet Secretary ~ RCHljlm 

Enclosure 

cc: 	 Diana Esher (3APOO) 

John A. Benedict, Director, WVDEP 

Promoting a healthy environment.