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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GROUP
     LONG DISTANCE, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND IS
     QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0001004570
<NAME>                   GROUP LONG DISTANCE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 May-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                             343,373
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,307,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (942,000)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,751,769
<PP&E>                                             368,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (297,996)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,221,647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,316,738
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (5,096,789)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,221,647
<SALES>                                         15,903,169
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,903,169
<CGS>                                           10,087,693
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,087,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,819,365
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   808,067
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  53,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,134,998
<INCOME-TAX>                                       300,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,834,998
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,834,998
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.81
        


</TABLE>
# ORIGINAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0461 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. MELISSA ANN TRAINER,

Defendant and Appellant. 111 

# J MAY 03 2022 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State clf NInntana ORDER

On September 13, 2021, Defendant and Appellant Melissa Ann Trainer filed a Notice ofAppeal in this Court, appealing from the May 24, 2021 Order Granting State's Appeal issued by the Sixth Judicial District Court, Park County, in its Cause No. DV 20-0128. Plaintiffand Appellee State ofMontana has moved to disrniss Trainer's appeal pursuant to M. R. App. P. 6(2) and § 46-20-104(1), MCA. The State asserts that Trainer is attempting to appeal frorn an order which is neither a final judgment of conviction nor an order after a final judgment of conviction that affects Trainer's substantial rights, and as such this is not an appealable order under the applicable statute and appellate rule. Trainer, via counsel, opposes the State's rnotion to dismiss. While she admits that theorder sheseekstoappeal is not a finaljudgment ofconviction, she assertsthatthe order is appealable because § 46-20-104, MCA "allows a defendant to also appeal orders after judgment which affect substantial rights ofthe defendant." In this case, the Order at issue is not an order afterjudgment, asnojudgrnent hasyet been entered in thiscase. Therefore, it is not appealable under § 46-20-104, MCA. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that that the motion to dismiss this appeal is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. 05/03/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0461The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord.

Dated this 3 day ofMay, 2022.

7A r) hiefJustice

2
#### Heinemann, Respondent, vs. Hall, Appellant.

For the appellant: *F. E. Bachhuber*of Wausau.

For the respondent: *Bird, Smith, Okoneski & Puchner*of Wausau.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

OCT 3 0 2009

OFFICE OF

AIR QUALITY PLANNING

AND STANDARDS

Mr. Surasak Supatanasinkasem

Manager - Air Analysis Section

Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality

Air Quality Assessment Division

P.O. Box 4314

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4314

Dear Mr. Supatanasinkasem:

This letter transmits the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval ofthe

PAMS network plan for the state ofLouisiana dated July 2,2009, required according to the

Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations. Per 40 CFR 58.11(c), the PAMS monitoring network

design and changes are subject to the approval ofthe Administrator, which has been

delegated to the Director ofthe Air Quality Assessment Division in EPA's Office ofAir

Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).

To inform the approval process, we worked with your Regional Office on a review of

your plan. We found that the plan meets or exceeds the minimum PAMS monitoring

requirements contained in Appendix D of40 CFR part 58. After careful consideration, we

are pleased to approve your PAMS monitoring plan.

I want to thank you and your stafffor all the work you have put into developing the

PAMS monitoring plan. For questions, please contact Kevin Cavender ofmy staff at

cavender.kevin@epa.gov, or 919-541-2364.

Richard A. Wayland

Director

Air Quality Assessment Division

Intemet Address (URL). http://www.epa.gov

Recyc)edIRecyclabJe • Printed wnh Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
cc:

Jianzhong Liu, Louisiana DEQ

Maria Martinez, EPNRegion 6

Mark Sather, EPAlRegion 6

Regina Krystyn, EPAlRegion 6

Lewis Weinstock, EPNOAQPS

Kevin Cavender, EPNOAQPS
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to, and solely for purposes of, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), each of the undersigned hereby certifies inthe capacity and on the date indicated below that:

 

1.             The QuarterlyReport of Cache, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 3,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Cache, Inc.

 
| May 13,  2010 | By:      | /s/  Thomas E. Reinckens                              |
|--------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|               |     | Thomas  E. Reinckens                                  |
| * *           | * * | *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*                |
|               |     | (Principal  Executive Officer)                        |
|               |     |                                                  |
|               |     |                                                  |
| May 13,  2010 | By:      | /s/  Margaret Feeney                                  |
|               |     | Margaret  Feeney                                      |
|               |     | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
|               |     | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)          |

 

----
# C_2005061EN.01000302.xml

| 11.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3556 — Fortis/BCP)

(2005/C 61/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 19 January 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 32005M3556. 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 32005M3556. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2004118EN.01002502.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/25

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(Fourth Chamber)

of 5 April 2004

in Case C-3/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto): Alessandro Mosconi, Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia v Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architettonici di Venezia – Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali (1)

1

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 85/384/EEC - Mutual recognition of formal qualifications in architecture - Articles 10 and 11(g) - National legislation recognising the equivalence of qualifications in architecture and civil engineering, but reserving work on classified heritage buildings to architects - Principle of equal treatment - Situation purely internal to a Member State)

(2004/C 118/44)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-3/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Alessandro Mosconi, Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia and Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architettonici di Venezia – Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, in the presence of: Comune di San Martino Buon Albergo (VR), Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori, Ordine degli Archittetti de Verona and Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri – on the interpretation of Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15), in particular Articles 10 and 11(g) of that directive, and on the principle of equal treatment – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

In matters purely internal to a Member State, neither Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, in particular Articles 10 and 11(g) thereof, nor the principle of equal treatment precludes national legislation which recognises in principle the equivalence of qualifications in architecture and civil engineering, but reserving work on inter alia classified heritage buildings to architects only.

---

(1)  OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002

1

---
##### 



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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 /s/       Robert T. RayName:
    Robert T. RayTitle:
    Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
The Houston Exploration Company




---



##### 



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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 /s/        Robert T. RayName:
    Robert T. RayTitle:
    Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
The Houston Exploration Company
•

Brigadier General, USAF

Director

Del

CLAM141111141MIPS' soar

anarreva MOEN t 1 asturnoes CAM alLSECRET-- ONNIONIt. NONIOULA OF

m OW as otaAsury ON Or OM AG

-WA-NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C. immenvinma

THE NRO STAFF August 17, 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. JOHN HUGHES, BCO/TCO, DOD

SUBJECT: Security Aspects of Congressional Statements

and Testimony

There have been several instances again this year where

Pentagon witnesses before Congressional committees have

submitted statements or have made remarks which have gone.

beyond proper security limits associated with NRO programs.

We would like to introdute some measures which might

tend to minimize inadvertent statements or remarks by

those making future testimony. One way that this might be

done is to prepare some security guidelines concerning the

NRP and provide these to potential witnesses who are

associated with programs having an interface with the NRO.

My Staff is prepared to work with your representative in

establishing these guidelines which could take the form of

a memorandum to the key personnel and which would explain

the various levels of statements or remarks which can be

made without violating required security.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6906** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CHAUNCEY THOMPSON, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1 : 08

- cr - 00 159

- JFM

- 1; 1:12

- cv - 03696

- JFM )

Submitted : November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013

Before WYNN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Chauncey Thompson, Jr. Appellant Pro Se
. John Walter Sippel, Jr. , Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore , Maryland , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Chaunc e y Thompson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (201 2 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 )
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debat able or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thompson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Thompson’s motions for transcripts at Government expense and to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the ma terials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices: Agricultural Chemical Storage 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7050

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARK STEELE DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-87-299, CA-00-3923-6-13AK)

Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Steele Davis, Appellant Pro Se. William Corley Lucius,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Steele Davis appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

Davis’ case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Davis that the failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Davis failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Davis has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We

accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
.• .

-• r

COVINk. Internal

TOP SECRET CON. 041 011•4•

• •:•.)It II •, •pwa •

.1 .11? •;.

04% •1 • Ia.. • .V.11• est.•

••• • ••• • " • ••••.to• •••••••••

-TOP-SEGREFCORONA

CORONA FILES 

Briefing Charts

CTP Samples (two rev minimum):

Look Ahead

R-14 - Inflight Ground Tracks

R-47 - Camera Data

R-64 - Nominal Coverage and Consumption Data

R-65 DISIC/Emergency Film Consumption Data

R-125 - Flight Line Weather Forecast

R-127 - Flight Line Assessed Weather

R-200 - Command and Control Time Lines

R-201 - CTP Daily Swath Plot

R-202 - CTP Camera Operation Selection

k. R-204 - H-Timer Program Data (CLOVER)

1. R-205 - CTP Postpass Data

•

R-208 - Pram:anon Statistics

R-210 - HPA Summary and Look Ahead

Duty Officer Logs

Film Summary Logs

5. Messages:

Launches

Malfunctions

Recoveries

Commendations

CORONA
CORONA

b. Mission Critiques

Mission Coverage Statistics (NPIC Publications)

Polaroid Photos of Mission Boards

Reports Control Manuals

Technical Manuals

11. Miscellaneous Documents

CORONA

TOP SECRET 011C01.01%

..1 ..: 1: •aeo •- •Z•••• 7 13, .1.11) a; ...Ire Z 51 Z

L :7 3 WI: • .1 Va. •• ace% WI' ••• •

v.. .. ••n•n••n•••••n••••••n •••••• •• , ......V.S........."'"1....."'"'...r". ' ...r.r.r.r.'5"."21.7VIEl . .

Internal

..ap%.Z

l

•