alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Home Loan Trust 1996-1
$ 153,521,000 7.15% Asset Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997




         PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
            DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %
        ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-97           0     914,729     460,440    4.23%    5,753,240    4.40%
 Feb-97           0     914,729     414,144    3.23%    5,026,713    3.27%
 Mar-97           0     914,729     577,024    4.61%    5,360,019    3.57%
 Apr-97           0     914,729     558,641    4.28%    5,988,485    3.82%
 May-97           0     914,729     274,708    2.16%    5,128,028    3.36%
 Jun-97           0     914,729     709,065    5.75%    6,228,861    4.21%
 Jul-97           0     914,729     751,713    6.27%    6,466,587    4.50%
 Aug-97           0     914,729     705,737    6.12%    6,466,216    4.67%
 Sep-97           0     914,729     809,319    7.24%    6,596,659    4.92%
 Oct-97           0     914,729     780,798    6.21%   10,548,595    6.99%
 Nov-97  12,940,862     914,729     729,264    5.99%   12,621,933    8.64%
 Dec-97           0     837,623     778,255    6.61%   10,748,430    7.61%
        ____________ ___________ ___________
 Totals  12,940,862  10,899,646   7,549,108

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: CIIART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION 

MEMORANDUM 

September 9 J 1971 

To: L. Molaskey 

From: J. Ross 

Subject: Telecon Report • Ross 9/9/71 

(\E "; .: a .); J. 

The undersigned cal advise that the shipping container fa!'" the 

RV-3 recovery win be on 14 Septembe!'" 1971 at the place of 

manufactu~ delivered to Win~ Grove on 16 September 1971 to be 

air lifted .~greed that this date was acceptable, but commented 

that it was success o!"'iented • 

JR/fb 

cc: 

STood 

RRoylance 

..
# C_2004232EN.01000201.xml

| 17.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/2

---

Amendment to Call FP6-2003-SME-1

(Official Journal of the European Union C 307 of 17 December 2003)

(Official Journal of the European Union C 307 of 17 December 2003)

(2004/C 232/02)

With reference to call FP6-2003-SME-1, published in the Official Journal of 17 December 2003 (1), with a closure date of 21 October 2004, the rules for submission of proposals for indirect RTD actions are amended in the following manner:

1

| — | only those proposals submitted via the electronic proposal submission system (EPSS) mentioned in point 5 of the call will be considered eligible, |
| --- | --- |

—

only those proposals submitted via the electronic proposal submission system (EPSS) mentioned in point 5 of the call will be considered eligible,

| — | proposals submitted by post will be excluded except those sent to the European Commission, at the latest, by 30 September 2004. |
| --- | --- |

—

proposals submitted by post will be excluded except those sent to the European Commission, at the latest, by 30 September 2004.

Proposers who, for technical reasons, can not use the electronic proposal submission system (EPSS) may request, by 5 October 2004 at the latest, from the European Commission the right to submit their proposal by post, in conformity with paragraph 6 of the call. Requests of this nature should be addressed to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| FP6-2003-SME-1 |
| DG RTD-M-4 |
| SDME 01/110 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

European Commission

FP6-2003-SME-1

DG RTD-M-4

SDME 01/110

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ C 307, 17.12.2003, p. 15.

1

---
#### BENTON UTLEY v. F. C. H. PETERS.

Upon a motion to be allowed to defend after judgment, under see: 85, chap. 17, Bat. Rev., the facts in the case must be found by the Court iu which the motion is made.

*{Clegg*v. *N. T. Soapstone Co.,*66 N. C. Rep. S91, cited and approved.)

Special proceedings, tried before Tourgee, *J.,*at Spring Term, 1874, Oeange Superior Court. *

'This was a motion under sec. 85, C. C. P., to bo allowed to defendant after j udgment, and asking a writ of *recordari*to bring up certain proceedings before a magistrate necessary to defence against the judgment, and also to cancel a deed made by the Sheriff of Orange to one S. M. Barbee, conveying certain property sold, under execution.

*526The ease was heard upon affidavits and among others filed in the case, the defendant filed the following:

“ F. C. H. Peters, being duly sworn, says:

1. That during the years 1865-’66-’67 the plaintiff sold and delivered goods to her husband Osmond Peters, and the bill for the same was presented against him.

2. That defendant did not agree to charge her property for said debt.

3. That she did not receive notice of any judgment against, her until some time during the month of May, 1873, and there she learned it only indirectly through another lady.

4. That she is now, and has been for several years residing in Portsmouth in Virginia, and is ignorant of the laws of North Carolina, and was not informed of her rights in the action until recently.

5. That from dealing with S. M. Barbee, while at Chapel Hill she has reason to believe that said Barbee at the time of his purchase knew the house and lot in Chapel Hill to be her property, and that the debt on which judgment was obtained by Benton Utley, to be due and owing by Osmond Peters. That she remembers to have told Mr. Barbee, in the latter part of the year 1867, that the said house and lot in Chapel Hill, was her property, free from the control or the debts of her husband in any way.

FREDENA C. H. PETERS.

Upon the hearing his Honor refused the application of the-defendant and dismissed the motion.

The defendant appealed; and as ground of appeal alleged “ that good c%use was shown, upon application made within one year after notice of judgment, and within five years after its rendition, and that the defendant should have been all owed to defend.

*J. W.*Graham, for appellant.

*JBusbee &*Busbee, contra.

*527Reads, J.

If we felt at liberty to decide the case, we would probably have to take the facts in the case to be as stated by the defendant in her affidavit; and so taking them, the merits would seem to be in her favor. Rut, as we said in *Clegg*v. N. *Y. Soap Stone Co.,*66 N. C. R. 391, and numerous other eases since, the facts must be found below. To this end the cause will be remanded. Neither party will recover costs in this Court.

Pee Cuuiam. Case remanded.
# C_2005084EN.01000101.xml

| 6.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 April 2005

(2005/C 84/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2810 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,16 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,45 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6841 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1765 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5541 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 78,32 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,164 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5846 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,995 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,44 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4299 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1297 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 36 449 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,70 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,935 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7515 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6758 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5683 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9914 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8188 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1329 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 303,42 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,9995 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,6022 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,419 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 163,10 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8677 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 70,231 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,79 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,79 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2810

JPY

Japanese yen

139,16

DKK

Danish krone

7,45

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6841

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1765

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5541

ISK

Iceland króna

78,32

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,164

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5846

CZK

Czech koruna

29,995

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,44

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4299

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1297

ROL

Romanian leu

36 449

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,70

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,935

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7515

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6758

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5683

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9914

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8188

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1329

KRW

South Korean won

1 303,42

ZAR

South African rand

7,9995

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,6022

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,419

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 163,10

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8677

PHP

Philippine peso

70,231

RUB

Russian rouble

35,79

THB

Thai baht

50,79

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
11*-IMBiREIL

-1St NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C. 11111111111111WININ

THE NRO STAFF June 15, 1972

NOTE FOR MAj04111111

John Walsh called at 1750 on Wednesday, June 14. He

wanted to pass on to you that there was a statement in the President's letter transmitting the SALT papers to

Congress of interest to us. Although he didn't have it

in front of him, it said something to the effect that this

agreement would prohibit, for example, interference with

satellites used for verification: It appeared to John,

and sounded to me, as if this were the same statement you

had seen before.

Lt Colone 

USAF1111

---TOMCREF

MUMS Vier *014161K WW/18118

statcnes •888 N OM NS &my

Internal
THIS PROVISION WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, PROHIBIT INTERFERENCE

WITH A SATELLITE IN ORBIT USED FOR VERIFICATION OF THIS

TREATY.

The provision referred to concerns the agreement by each

party that they would not interfemwith . the other's National

technical means of verification.
THIS PROVISION WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, PROHIBIT INTERFERENCE

WITH A SATELLITE IN ORBIT USED FOR VERIFICATION OF THIS

TREATY.

The provision referred to concerns the agreement by each

party that they would not interfemewith . the other's National

technical means of verification.

.$

6
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 25170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10131]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; 
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification: 
Air Carriers and Commercial Operators

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information 
collection. The respondents to this information collection are CFR Part 
135 and Part 121 operators. The FAA uses the information to ensure 
compliance and adherence to the regulations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 1, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954-9362, or by 
email at: Kathy.DePaepe@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0593.
    Title: Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8400-6.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: This request for clearance reflects requirements 
necessary under parts 135, 121, and 125 to comply with part 119. The 
FAA uses the information it collects and reviews to insure compliance 
and adherence to regulations and, if necessary, take enforcement action 
on violators of the regulations.
    Respondents: Approximately 2,445 air carriers and commercial 
operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 2.45 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 8,869 hours.
    ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. 
Kathy DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 
6500 S. MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of 
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the 
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the 
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) 
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of 
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include 
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information 
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 28, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises 
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-10131 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION %^ -

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON. DC. ^ 4R 9 ^Oi 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

vs. 

Helicopter Flite 

Respondent 

t •••J ' '>', , . 

# CP09EA0015 

ff^ 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

AND NOW, comes the Respondent Floyd Hoffman, principle for Helicopter;'Flite, 

Inc. whom avers and files the following: 

1. Pursuant to the Judgment served on February 4, 2010 against Helicopter 

Flite Inc, Respondent hereby files a Notice of Appeal in accordance with 

14 CFR 13.223(a), 13.211(e). 

2. Respondent avers the following reasons: 

i. Honorable Judge Isaac D. Benkin, erred in his decision to assess 

the civil penalty based on incomplete facts, substance and case 

merits. 

ii. Respondent did not enter a praecipe for appearance on behalf of 

himself for pro se representation; to wit the honorable judge 

Page 1 of2 
inadvertently denied the Respondent his constitutional right for 

legal representation. 

iii. Respondent was denied his right to discovery and filing evidentiary 

documentary evidence. 

WHEREFORE, The Respondent, Helicopter Flite prays this Honorable Court will 

reconsider it's violation's for the above reasons and proceed to an additional 

hearing where Respondent is allowed legal representation to argue the materigJ 

facts in this case. 

Respectfully Submitted 

Floyd Hoffman 

Datej^,^^^ * 

Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,981
<SECURITIES>                                    10,307
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                       298
<INVENTORY>                                     13,291
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,412
<PP&E>                                           6,497
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,839
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,110
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,485
<CGS>                                           30,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,724
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,382
<INCOME-TAX>                                       621
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,382
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,583
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
',. 

'• 

..... .., f"l~/L.Y 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE: AND TECHNOLOGY 

WASHINGTON TCS No. 36, 961 /69 

January 23, 1969 

Dear Dr. Flax: 

This d,ocumcnt consists of _l pares. 

l'lo. 1-Jt ..2..Copics, Serles A 

As you know, the purpose of the "ARGO Steering Committee" is 

, to help the civilian agencies identify ways in which they might use 

products from the classified satellites and to make those interests 

known to COMIREX. Some of the possibilities were suggested 

in last year's ARGO report and these we are trying to define more 

fully. However, the ARGO members feel that the ARGO report 

did not do justice to possibilities related to Marine Sciences and 

the Committee is proposing to have a subgroup investigate this 

area more fully. The working group would be chaired by Glenn E. 

Schweitzer of the Marine Sciences Council and be composed of 

the people on the attached list, all of whom have T /KH clearances. 

We would like to take advantage of the experience and competence 

of the Naval Oceanographic Office by having Captain T. K. Treadwell, 

Jr., and his people give advice ano technical support to our working 

group. I have received preliminary agreement to this arrangement 

from your staff and the Naval Oceanographic Office and if you £ind 

it acceptable, the working group will plan its first meeting for 

January 3 I. 

I have attached a description of the Working Group's scope of work. 

Sincerely, 

y <-,:: .... , ... , ... <:.~~ 

Donald H. Steininge;;-J 

Chairman, ARGO_ StWering Committee 

Enclosures 

a/ s (TCS No. 36, 991 /68, Cy Z, Ser. D) 

Dr, Alexander H. Flax 

Assistant Secretary £or Research & Development 

Department of the Air Force 

TALENT~K!::"YHOLE 

HANDt:E' 

Washington, 

VI~ 

D. C. Z0330 

~ 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111779
Argued and submitted August 29,

affirmed October 10,

reconsideration denied December 5, 1990,

petition for review allowed January 15, 1991 (311 Or 87)

See later issue Oregon Reports

#### DONALD MUELLER, *Appellant, v.*Bob BENNING, *Respondent.*

(87-C-12088; CA A62309)

798 P2d 267

John E. Storkel, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Keith W. Wingfield, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*650PER CURIAM

Appellant was found guilty except for insanity of burglary in the first degree after waiving a jury trial.1 He was committed to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board for a period not to exceed 20 years. He seeks a writ of *habeas corpus*on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The trial court entered a judgment dismissing the petition.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition, because he presented sufficient evidence that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.2 Respondent argues that appellant’s proper remedy is post-conviction relief. Respondent contends that “the court below lacked jurisdiction to hear this matter and thus this court also lacks jurisdiction to review the decision of the circuit court.”

Respondent is correct that post-conviction relief is appellant’s sole remedy. ORS 138.540(1); ORS 34.330(3).3

Affirmed.

1

 Under *former*ORS 161.295, a defendant could be found

> *“not responsible for criminal conduct*if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.” (Emphasis supplied.)

At the time of appellant’s conviction, the statute had been amended, Or Laws 1983, ch 800, § 1, to provide for a finding of “guilty except for insanity.” Under the current statute, a finding of guilty except for insanity constitutes a conviction.

2

 In the light of our disposition of this case, we do not reach this argument.

3

 ORS 138.540(1) provides that post-conviction relief

> “shall be the exclusive means, after judgment rendered upon a conviction for a crime, for challenging the lawfulness of such judgment or the proceedings upon which it is based.”

ORS 34.330(3) denies *habeas corpus*relief to a person entitled to post-conviction relief.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jost Fischer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                     |  |                                                                              
|---------------- |  | ------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|December 4, 2008 |  | /S/    JOST FISCHER
|                 |  | Name:               |  | Jost Fischer                                                                 
|                 |  | Title:              |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive 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 Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and will be
retained by Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.