alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-karch C15761

NUMBER 516C. 32

I.

11•1104••

CC, rIoD

i 1

, 

i

, ,....... .,

...

...t., , , \‘ , ...,,„.,, ...„.;,:r7.,.....,.. ,...• .....„.,....,......, 

4,11_ _,1& '4..1 40 ,;' ;•‘*

1w44.1•ce..):44..

.

.... Jo.. .1.

Departmeth of Defense Directive

SUBJECT

References: (a)

Development of Space Systems

Memorandum (Conn) from Secretary oi" 

to Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, subject:

Satellite and Space Vehicles Operations,

September 18, 1959

1

Memorandum from Director, Advanced Research Projects Agency to Secretary of the

Array, Secretary of the Navy, =I Secretary

of the Air Force, subject: Study Contracts

for Projects Assigned to the Advanced Research

Projects Agency, September 14, 1959

Memorpnrhini (Cord) from Director of Defense

Research and Engineering to the Secretary of

the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Sec-*

retary of the Air Force, and Director, Advanced

Research Projects Agency, subject: ARPJ.

Programs, June 11, 1959

PUR POSE

This directive establishes policies and assigns reaponsibilities for research, development; test, and engineering

of satellites, anti-satellites, space probes and cup:porting

systems therefor, for all components of the Department

of Defense.

POLICY AND ASSIGNMENT OF. RESPONSIBILITIES

A. Each military department an&Deparmeent of Defense

agency iz atItaGrized to conduct preliminary research

to develop new ways of using space technology, to
perform its assigned function. The scope o.: zuch research :hall be defined by the r...Siector of De...fense

Research and Engineering in terms afrexpen.diture liMitadons and other appropriate conditions.

ropagala for re:J.:ex:1i and development of epee° pee:Ire:no

and projecto beyoad tae defined preliminary reaearch etas*

shall be submitted to the Director of Defense Research and

Engineering for review and determination es to whether

such proposals, when trancrnitted to the Secretary of Defense,

will be recommended for approval. Lay each proposal will

become a Department of Defense space development program

or project only upon specific approval by the Secretary of

Defenee or. the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Research, development, test, and engineering of Department Of Defense space development programs or projects,

which are approved hereafter, will be the responsibility

of the Department of the Air Force.

Exceptions to paragraph C will be made b; the Secretary

of Defenoe or the Deputy Secretary of Defer.33 only in

unusual circumstances.

The Director of Defense Rozearch and Engineering will

maintain a current• summary of approved Department of

Defense space development programs and projects.

CANCELLA.T.ION

Reference (a), except as to the assignments of specific pro jectc

made therein, and references (b) and (c) are hereby cancelled.

IV. EFFECTIVE DAV.: .

This directive is effective upon publication. Instructions ire.-

pleineentag this directive will be issued within thirty (30) days.

Secre:ary of Deis is

2
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF

AXTIVE CORPORATION



|                                |  |                       
|------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name                            |  | State of Incorporation
|                                | 
|UDT Consulting, Inc.            |  | Texas                 
|                                | 
|Media Resolutions, Incorporated |  | Texas                 
|                                | 
|Virtually There, Inc.           |  | Texas                 
|                                | 
|The Visionary Group, Inc.       |  | Texas                 
|                                | 
|Visual Edge Systems, Inc.       |  | Texas                 
|                                | 
|ThinkSpark Corporation          |  | Delaware
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRIS JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 606 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C
Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Unified Western Grocers, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended July 1,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alfred A. Plamann, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 as of and for the periods
presented in the Report.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 15, 2006



/s/    ALFRED A. PLAMANNAlfred A. PlamannPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      11,153,852
<SECURITIES>                                22,430,342
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,075,729
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,707,937
<PP&E>                                       1,456,243
<DEPRECIATION>                                  85,287
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             247,004,949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      202,298,986
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       810,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  42,916,979
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               247,004,949
<SALES>                                      3,085,908
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,317,531
<CGS>                                        1,495,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,729,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,234,070
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,083,743
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,785,724
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,153,676
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,153,676
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.42
        

</TABLE>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 24, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01093-CV 

PAUL SLAUGHTER, Appellant 

V. 

BUTLER RENTALS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 

County Court at Law No. 3 

McLennan County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 20220565CV3 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Pedersen, III, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. After appellant failed to respond to 

our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without 

a reporter’s record and for appellant’s brief to be filed by January 5, 2023. By 

postcard dated January 20, 2023, we informed appellant his brief was overdue and 

directed him to file his brief within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to 

do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed his brief or otherwise 

corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

221093F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

PAUL SLAUGHTER, Appellant 

No. 05-22-01093-CV V. 

BUTLER RENTALS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 3, McLennan County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 

20220565CV3. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Goldstein participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered February 24, 2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN ITEM 1 ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S REPORT ON
FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          79,569
<SECURITIES>                                     4,372
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,247
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,555
<PP&E>                                         147,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                  86,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          139,357
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,936)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,429
<SALES>                                        269,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               269,549
<CGS>                                          163,398
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123,785
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,019)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,019)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,019)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

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


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>          0001004540
<NAME>         AIRPLANES US TRUST


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               6
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        6
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (2)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    10
<PP&E>                                             420
<DEPRECIATION>                                     146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               11
<BONDS>                                            327
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (180)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       317
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    10
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        5
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (7)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (7)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (7)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
# C_2004314EN.01001701.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/17

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 6 October 2004

in Case T-294/02: Miguel Vicente-Nuñez v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Decision on promotion - Seniority in grade - Date of taking effect)

(2004/C 314/43)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-258/01: Miguel Vicente-Nuñez, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Lozano Palacios, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision promoting the applicant to Grade A 5, Step 3 under the 1998 procedure, adopted in order to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 9 March 2000 in Case T-10/99, in so far as it limits its effect to 1 April 2000, and, second, a claim for damages, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission's decision of 11 June 2002, in so far as it does not have the effect of replacing Mr Vicente-Nuñez in a situation comparable, from the point of view of his seniority in grade, to the situation in which he would have been had he been promoted to Grade A 5 on 1 April 1998; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission's decision of 11 June 2002, in so far as it does not have the effect of replacing Mr Vicente-Nuñez in a situation comparable, from the point of view of his seniority in grade, to the situation in which he would have been had he been promoted to Grade A 5 on 1 April 1998;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ No C 289 of 23.11.2002

---
Exhibit 32.1

        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Henry E.
Gemino, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of Profile
Technologies, Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.


                                                     /s/ Henry E. Gemino
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Henry E. Gemino
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          38,616
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                       842
<INVENTORY>                                      5,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,817
<PP&E>                                         455,953
<DEPRECIATION>                                 118,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 408,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,296
<BONDS>                                        234,766
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,156
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   408,173
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               362,531
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  309,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,441
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,628
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,382
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,246
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (27,007)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,761)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Forage and Biomass Planting, Prescribed Grazing.

**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.
From: Robert Berman [mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 5:47 AM

To: Parker Richard

Cc: Robert Berman; Corkran, Jerry L; Bolduc Christop her; Anderson Richard; Ballo Timothy; Beck Scott R.; Caskey John. F; Cymbalsky John; adelaski@standar dsasap.org Delaski; Tom; Fernstrom Gary; Gaytan
Carlos; Greeson Robert; bruce.r.hirs ch@bge.com Hirsch R; Hodge Gerald R.; Hyland Michael J.; Millure David; Nadel Steven; Patterson Wesley F.; Petersen Eric; Polinski Raymond; artrosenfeld@gmail.com Rosenfeld; Rosenstock Steven J.; Roy Robin; Sain t Robert; Simmons Charles E.; Cohen Dan; Coulter Greg; Creevy Jim; ahofmann@publicpower.org Hofma nn; Kumar Puesh; Mauer Joanna; Aaron Meyers; jrossetti@mlgw.org Rossetti; Ryan Paul; Schoen Je rry W.; bsmith@federalpacific.com Smith; Waltner Meg; Brian Coffey; Coughlin Katie; brenda.edwards @ee.doe.gov Edwards; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov Freeman; Caitlin Johnson; Zhimei Luo; emily.marchett i@ee.doe.gov; Michael Rivest; Rosenquist Gregory; Drexler Charles R.; Phil Hopkinson; James.Lass@cle co.com Lass; Sampat Mahesh P.; DYoung@energysolution.com Young; chad.kennedy@us.schneider-e lectric.com Kennedy; eduardorobles@eaton.com Robles; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower. com Tendulkar; Kenneth Winder; thomas.patzner@us.schneiderelectric.com Patzner; carlosgsiqueir os@eaton.com Siquieros; Raba Jim Subject: Cost of Capital to Electric Utilities



### Richard and All,

For those interested in the curren t cost of money to investor owne d electric utilities, the weighted average cost of capital a ppears to be a little over 5%. This is composed of about 7% equity and

4% debt. See attached for full li st of sector costs. As noted in my earlier email to Ken, rural electric coops and municipals typically borrow fr om RUS at rates pegged to long-term treasuries -- currently about 3%. Links also included her for convenience.

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/UEP_Rates.html

and http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/UEP_Loans_Grants.html
----

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 9 September 2004

in Case T-14/04 Alto da Casablanca SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Representation by a lawyer - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2005/C 19/52)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-14/04, Alto da Casablanca SA, established in Casablanca (Chile), represented by A. Pluckrose, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Montalto), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being Bodegas Julián Chivite, SL, established in Cintruénigo (Spain) – application for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2003 (Case R 18/2003-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark VERAMONTE as a Community trade mark – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.

----