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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Prudential-Bache/VMS Realty Associates L.P. I 1996 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000350558
<NAME> PRUDENTIAL BACHE VMS REALTY ASSOCIATES L.P. I
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              93
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Acute and Chronic Neurodegenerative Diseases.                    

*Date:*                         March 5-6, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Seetha Bhagavan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for                               ( print page 9737)                            Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5194, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 237-9838,                         *bhagavas@csr.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 18, 2015.

Carolyn Baum, 

Program Officer, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-03631 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0528 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-SW-068-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### In re Peter PIAMBINO, Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 84-01467-BKC-TCB.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida.

Dec. 27, 1984.

Linda L. Gruel, Lake Worth, Fla., for debtor.

Gary I. Zwickel, Zwickel, Gross & Kes-sler, Lake Worth, Fla., James R. Merola, Levy, Shapiro, Kneen & Kingcade, Palm Beach, Fla., for Robert Leeland etc. Palm Beach, Fla.

*244Daniel L. Bakst (trustee) Johnson & Bakst, P.A., West Palm Beach, Fla., for trustee.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AVOID LIEN

THOMAS C. BRITTON, Bankruptcy Judge.

This chapter 7 debtor seeks (C.P. No. 13) avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) of a lien evidenced by a Final Judgment in the amount of $38,824 entered on July 25, 1984 by the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida in Case No. 84-2947 CA (L) B. The debtor alleges that this lien was a judicial lien which impairs an exemption and therefore is avoidable under the cited statute.

The bankruptcy was commenced on August 7. The debtor has claimed a homestead exemption for his home in Palm Springs and that exemption is not disputed.

The judgment identified above memorializes a lien in favor of Robert Lelland General Contractor, Inc. against the Palm Springs real property which is exempt under Florida law as the plaintiffs homestead. Neither the complaint nor the record before me, which includes the judgment, explicitly identifies the basis of the judgment.

The judgment-creditor has filed an objection (C.P. No. 14) asserting that the lien is a statutory rather than a judicial lien and therefore is not avoidable. The debt- or/movant has the burden of proving entitlement to the relief he seeks. He has not carried that burden and for that reason alone the motion must be denied.

The authorities cited by the judgment-creditor stand for the proposition that a mechanics’ lien is a statutory rather than a judicial lien for the purposes of § 522(f). The inference, therefore, is that the judgment in question here rests upon a Florida mechanics’ lien. If so, there is no question that it is a statutory lien. Chapter 713, Florida Statutes; *York Corporation v. Brock,*405 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir.1969); *Matter of Lowery Bros., Inc.,*589 F.2d 851, 862 (5th Cir.1979). Although both of these cases were decided under the former Act, each identifies the Florida mechanics’ lien statute as one which creates a purely statutory lien.

Section 522(f)(1) is applicable only to judicial liens and, therefore, is not applicable to a statutory lien. The two terms are defined in § 101(27) and (38). Mechanics’, as well as material men’s and warehouse-men’s liens, are typical examples of statutory liens which are not subject to avoidance under § 522(f). The legislative history makes that clear. *In re Ribeiro,*7 B.R. 359, 360 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass.1980). As stated in that decision:

> “Furthermore, the mere fact that in order to enforce a lien a supplier may be required to resort to the courts does not make that lien a judicial lien.”

See also *Matter of Reardon,*10 B.R. 697, 699 (Bkrtcy.D.Conn.1981).

The motion is denied.
----

            COUNCIL DECISION         

of 15 September 2006         

appointing three Danish members and five Danish alternate members to the Committee of the Regions

(2006/630/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposals from the Danish Government,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010:

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 15 September 2006.

For the Council

The President

E. TUOMIOJA            

----

(1)OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

----
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HANNIH TJONG JAP,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73178

Agency No. A079-642-424

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Hannih Tjong Jap, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

MAY 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73178

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and

review for substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d

1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jap did not

experience harms in Indonesia amounting to past persecution. See id. at 1059-60;

see also Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1100-1101 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner

failed to establish past persecution based on harassment and forced closure of

business). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Jap failed

to establish it is more likely than not she will be persecuted if returned to

Indonesia, because, even as a member of a disfavored group, Jap has not

demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha v.

Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n

applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger

quantum of individualized-risk evidence”). Further, Jap has not established a

pattern or practice of persecution of people similarly situated to her. See Wakkary,

558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly, Jap’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Jap failed to establish it is more likely than not she will be tortured if returned to

Indonesia. See id. at 1067-68.
3 08-73178

Finally, we reject Jap’s contention that the IJ failed to consider the country

conditions materials, because she has not overcome the presumption the agency

reviewed the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th

Cir. 2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1
<CURRENCY>                                     U S Dollars

<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                           94,018
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     2,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                (13,390)
<PP&E>                                                          899,983
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  373,060
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               73,666,460
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        38,929,167
<BONDS>                                                      36,713,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                  36,248,375
<COMMON>                                                     23,768,527
<OTHER-SE>                                                  (25,279,609)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 73,666,460
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                264,903
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              3,092,526
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            3,285,517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (6,113,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (6,113,140)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (6,113,140)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (0.68)


</TABLE>
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1477 

To require a report on the future mix of aircraft platforms for the Armed 

Forces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 2, 2015 

Mr. ROUNDS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require a report on the future mix of aircraft platforms 

for the Armed Forces. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Long Range Strike 

5 Aircraft Mix Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORT ON FUTURE MIX OF AIRCRAFT PLATFORMS 

7 FOR THE ARMED FORCES. 

8 (a) REPORT ON STUDY REQUIRED.—The Secretary 

9 of Defense shall submit to Congress a report setting forth 

10 the results of a study, to be performed by an organization 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1477 IS

1 or entity independent of the Department of Defense se2 lected by the Secretary for purposes of this section, that 

3 determines the following: 

4 (1) An optimized future mix of shorter range 

5 fighter-class strike aircraft and long-range strike air6 craft platforms for the Armed Forces. 

7 (2) An appropriate future mix of manned aerial 

8 platforms and unmanned aerial platforms for the 

9 Armed Forces. 

10 (b) CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINING MIX.—The 

11 mixes determined pursuant to the study shall be deter12 mined taking into account relevant portions of the defense 

13 strategy, critical assumptions, priorities, force-sizing con14 struct, and cost. 

15 (c) NONDUPLICATION OF EFFORT.—If any informa16 tion required under subsection (a) has been included in 

17 another report or notification previously submitted to Con18 gress by law, the Secretary may provide a list of such re19 ports and notifications at the time of submitting the re20 port required by subsection (a) in lieu of including such 

21 information in the report required by subsection (a). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 13.2

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), the undersigned officer of SK Telecom Co., Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 20-F fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: April 27, 2017 |  | /s/ Young Sang Ryu     
|                      |  | Young Sang Ryu         
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Mark Buckrey, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB/A of Sterion Incorporated;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



|August 19 , 2004 | /s/ Mark Buckrey       
|---------------- | -----------------------
|                 | Mark Buckrey           
|                 | Chief Financial Officer
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 26 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ANGELO DeHERRERA,

Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-2122 (D. Ct. No. CR-95-330-JC) (D. N. Mex.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument. This appeal is from an order of the district court sentencing defendant DeHerrera to a term of imprisonment of 135 months a fter a plea agreement in2

which defendant pled guilty to Count V of a superse ding indictment, which charged him with accessory after the fact to a carj acking resulting in death. The district court imposed the sentence within the appl icable Sentencing Guideline range and refused to depart downward after a reques t for a downward departure by the United States. Defendant DeHerrera appeals arguing that the distri ct court should have granted a downward departure based upon U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 arguing that the district judge should have granted defendant the do wnward departure because of his mitigating role in the underlying offense. The record makes clear that the district judge knew that he had the power to grant a downward departure. Downward departures from applicable Sentencing Guid eline ranges are left to the sound discretion of the trial court. It is well se ttled law in this circuit that absent a misunderstanding on the sentencing judge’s part, illegality, or an incorrect application of the guidelines, we will not review the denial of a downward departure. United States v. Garcia , 919 F.2d 1478, 1481 (10th Cir. 1990). We DISMISS this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge