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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,477                   5,471
<SECURITIES>                                    25,274                  32,191
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,517                  28,220
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,169                   4,955
<INVENTORY>                                     19,075                  15,954
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,154                  84,935
<PP&E>                                          20,513                  28,339
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,205                  10,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,837                 104,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,889                  25,875
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            82                      82 
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,866                  78,369
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,837                 104,345
<SALES>                                        128,481                 144,370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               128,481                 144,370
<CGS>                                           83,553                  88,950
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,553                  88,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,029                  40,980
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   155                     529
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  30                     135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,741                  13,776
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,330                   4,408
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,411                   9,368
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.81                    1.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.77                    1.20
        

</TABLE>
### Final comments on pre-draft Edward Gertler to: Jack Faulk 01/25/2010 08:42 AM

Just a few more remarks for your consideration. Good meeting, by the
way. Ed Gertler

Somebody asked a question about applicability of permit to *home remedies*, but gave no example of what he meant by that term. So I will. How about barley straw? Nobody seems to know just how it works, but it seems to be a chemical, not physical effect. I would prefer that we not regulate such, but we should at least address our decision in the fact sheet.

You should make it clear that scope of permit should be based on potential of contamination, as is the case with the traditional NPDES permit is based on potential. That is, if one has contaminated water to discharge, even if the operator treats that water and removes all pollutants, and does so consistently, they still need a permit, because they start with dirty water. So with pesticides application, if it is done near water, than we should define the need for a permit by there being an area that could be contaminated by misapplication or bad luck.

In Appendix A, I would delete non-aquatic effects from the definition of adverse incidents. This is a water protection permit only, so if the harm comes from breathing or direct contact with pesticides in a terrestrial setting, it should be regulated by other permits or laws.

Finally (a pet grammatical peeve of mine), please do search for all "make a determination" and change to "determine" That three-work phrase is stilted language used by bureaucrats, cops, and any others trying to sound educated and official. Take any technical writing course and they will tell you to eliminate such language from your vocabulary. Permits are hard enough to read without making them unnecessarily wordy.

----------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------- <<<<GWIASIG 0.07>>>>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1584 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1584

                 To repeal the renewable fuel standard

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 16, 2015

  Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 To repeal the renewable fuel standard

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Renewable Fuel Standard Repeal 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD.

    (a) In General.--Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545) 
is amended--
            (1) in subsection (d)--
                    (A) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``(n), 
                or (o)'' each place it appears and inserting ``or 
                (n)''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (1), in the second sentence, by 
                striking ``(m), or (o)'' and inserting ``or (m)'';
            (2) by striking subsection (o); and
            (3) by redesignating subsections (q) through (v) as 
        subsections (o) through (t), respectively.
    (b) Additional Repeal.--Section 204 of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 7545 note; Public Law 110-140) is 
repealed.
    (c) Regulations.--Effective beginning on the date of enactment of 
this Act, the regulations contained in subparts K and M of part 80 of 
title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on that date of 
enactment), shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00023-CV

__________________

ROBIN ROUSE, SABRINA ROUSE, AND NEIL CAMPBELL, ET AL, 

Appellants

V.

THOMAS CAMPBELL, FOSTER MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., FOSTER 

TIMBER, LTD., AND CHRISTY W. KOLVA, Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 18-12-15871-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a motion to dismiss its appeal. 

The motion is voluntarily made by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. prior to any 

decision of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion to dismiss 

and dismiss the appeal of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. The appeal shall continue as 

to the remaining appellants.
2

APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.

 PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 14, 2021

Opinion Delivered April 15, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41013 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v.
IGNACIO DANIEL PEREZ -GARZA, also known as Ri cardo Gonzalez

- Garcia , Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15 -CR- 1483 -1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio Daniel
Perez- Garza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez- Garza ha s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit 

### FILED January 30, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41013 Document: 00513854231 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2017No. 16

- 41013

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-41013 Document: 00513854231 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2017
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1496 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1496

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs to retain a copy of any reprimand or admonishment 
 received by an employee of the Department in the permanent record of 
                             the employee.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 3, 2015

  Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs to retain a copy of any reprimand or admonishment 
 received by an employee of the Department in the permanent record of 
                             the employee.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring Department of Veterans 
Affairs Employee Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. RETENTION OF RECORDS OF REPRIMANDS AND ADMONISHMENTS RECEIVED 
              BY EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 714. Record of reprimands and admonishments
    ``If any employee of the Department receives a reprimand or 
admonishment, the Secretary shall retain a copy of such reprimand or 
admonishment in the permanent record of the employee as long as the 
employee is employed by the Department.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``714. Record of reprimands and admonishments.''.
                                 <all>
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

320 

KA 12-01197 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V OPINION AND ORDER

ESTA MIRAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

THE PARRINELLO LAW FIRM, LLP, ROCHESTER (BRUCE F. FREEMAN OF COUNSEL),

AND CERULLI, MASSARE & LEMBKE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JODI A. DANZIG OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Richard A. Dollinger, A.J.), rendered October 15, 2010. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of offering a false

instrument for filing in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Same Opinion as in People v Miran ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___

[Apr. 26, 2013]). 

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bonorrble Corm F. Xreaoe 

County Aud ltor .~. 

‘dilalp Countr 

Cameron, Ttxar \ h\ ‘i, 

Dear Sir: Oplnlon No.4&*5“-' : 

iia: ccns true tihn&.Jrt’~c1 t 

7315b,$totion 6, Vrrhofi's‘ 

sssry to aqloy local ab103 1s et9ttd es roiiowrr 

lot me your opinion a e to 

, under the fact8 btrctoit it proper to fnclltdt 

at court oosts’ttt ressontble exponssr 

rcr prcouriag data and hiorwtion e5 

to ttit nant, identity, locetion end ntc- 
Honorable Corm R. 18atO8, p%58 2 

tsrary ~rtlts and ntot8stry legal dttcrIptIon or thr proptrty.m 

You era tCvIsed that Article 7345b. SootIon 6, 

vtrnon*t Anaotattd Civil Statutes, provides that moh 

reasonable azpanses as the taring unltr say Inour In 

rrrocmriog data and Inioraation at to the naiat, Identity 

aad looatlon of neotasart psrtles, and in procuring ntctrsary bee1 dtrcrIptIona of the property, shall ba 

chargteblt a8 oourt costs. 

Thtrerore, It la our opinion that any reasonablr expenses In proe.rIng the above information mar 

be chargad is oourt coats In each tax suit. i%owever, 

the qut8tIon a8 to just nhat data and Inrorpation ar8 

necasnary, and what tha reasonable expense thereorrould ba Is 

e qU68tiOn Or iaCt. 

Tnmting tba t the rortEoing fully ans?.wrs your lnquiry, we art, 

Tours vary truly 

B
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                          CMC SECURITIES CORPORATION IV
                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 33-47912) of CMC Securities Corporation IV pertaining to the issuance of
a maximum $2 billion aggregate principal balance of collateralized mortgage
obligations and in the related prospectus and prospectus supplements of our
report dated January 21, 1998, with respect to the financial statements of CMC
Securities Corporation IV included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1997.



                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 20, 1998
Kathryne VauseAppellant/s Liberty Insurance Corporation

and Justin A. /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 27, 2014

No. 04-13-00614-CV

Kathryne VAUSE,

Appellant

v.

LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION and Justin A. Smith,

Appellees

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 07-2231-CV

William Old, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on December 12, 2013. This court granted

Appellant’s first, second, and third motions for extension of time to file the brief until February

24, 2014. In our January 28, 2014 order, we warned Appellant that “NO FURTHER

EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED.” We

also warned that “[i]f Appellant fails to file the brief as ordered, the court may dismiss this

appeal for want of prosecution.” Appellant did not file the brief as ordered. 

On February 24, 2014, Appellant’s counsel filed an unopposed fourth motion for

extension of time to file the brief until March 26, 2014, for a total extension of 104 days. In the

motion, counsel described his recent major surgery and delayed recovery. As an unopposed

motion, counsel’s explanations are reasonable to justify a further extension up to, but not further

than, the requested date. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b). 

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must be filed with this court not

later than March 26, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d). NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF

TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED. If Appellant fails to file the

brief as ordered, the court may dismiss this appeal. See id. R. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

FILE COPY
___________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
-... · - - -~ 

. ,,• 

USCIB: 5.2/67 

.REF ID:A67906 

TB-PSEClt:ET 

/ 

Tgp Sl!iSfl'f - u .s. ms gttY 

MEMORANDUM F CR THE MEMBERS CF USCIB: 

• 

APffjNBJ!iB B@tBM 0Elffa\I11S 

S@EWQRB lfAEIAf, 

15 November 1954 

FtN4~ / ) Subject: '.Pe:MMiwe Minutes. (!By ~.Ja. '~ .' ::;. .J.. 71 

l. Attached is a copy of the tentative minutes for the lOSth . (Special) Meeting of USCIB. Please ad.vise the Secretary if any changes 

nre desired. • 

2. In the event there is no objection"to these minutes on the 

part or USCIB members by 30 November 1954 they will be considered 

approved. 

, D JONES 

e Secretary, USCIB 

. ~ ... ._ '-. 

Enclosure .s. i../"' L) . 

l 

l08th 

copy 

(Special) 

ot Tentative 

Meeting ~1inutes, of USCIB. 

9.l-/1tJ ~ 

USCIB: 5.2/67 

'FOP SECRET 

eclassifi ed and a roved or release b NS on 11-20-2014 ursuant t E .0. 1352 
........ ·-

.. . . 

... • 

90NFIBSRIAfi - e.s. EYES ONLY 

r 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH (SPECIAL) MEEI'ING 

OF THE 

UNITED STATES C()DIUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE BOARD 

Lt. General Charles P. Cabell, Acting Chairman 

PRESENT.: 

DEFENSE: 

STATE: 

ARMY: 

NAVY: 

AIR FORCE: 

EXECUTIVE SECREI'ARY: 

SECRETARIAT: 

ALSO PRESmT_: 

DEFENSE: 

STATE: 

NSA: 

General Graves B. Erskine,, USMC (Ret.) 

Mr. W. Park Armstrong, Jr. 

Lt·. General ~ph J. Canin_e, USA 

Mr. Victor P·. Keay 

(.for Mr. L. V. Boardman) 

Mr. Huntington D. Sheldon 

Major General Robert A. Schow 

(.for Major General Arthur G. Trudeau) 

Rear Admiral Carl F. Espe 

Major General Millard L8wi.s 

(.for Major General John A. Samford) 

Captain Rufus L. Taylor, USN 

Lt. Colonel Henry C. Sinunons 

Mrs. Daphne O. Tucker 

Mr. Philip J. Patton 

Mr. T. Achilles Polyzoides 

Mr. Robert G. Walker 

Captain Dwigpt M. Agnew, USN 

Mr. Benson K. Bui'fham 

Mr. S. Drake.Ellis 

EONF:BEN'FIAL 
• 

CIA: 

-

AR.MY: 

NAVY: 

Am FORCE: 

Mr. Franlc B. Rowlett 

Lt. Colonel Richard Leffers 

Mr. John F. 0 1Gara 

CDR Frederick Welden 

Lt. Colonel Frank J. Harrold, Jr. 

Captain Allen T. Miller 

OGA 

The 108th (Special) Meeting o! the United States Communications 

Intelligence Board was held in the Projection Room. Administration 

Building, Central Intelligence Agency, at 1000, Tuesday, 26 October 

1954. 

' 

- 2 -

EONF/9EH1=1AL 
... •• 

SOHFI:BEfi'fIAL - t:J.~. EYES ONLY 

SUBJECT NUMBER 

USCIB: 5.2/66 

Subject: 

Item. 1 of the Agenda for the J 08th (Special) Meeting 

of USCIB, held 26 October 1954. 

Approval of the Final Minutes of the 106th Meeting. 

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (Lt. General Cabell) asked if there were any 

cormnents on subj~ct minutes. 

There were no comments. . ' 

DECISION: (26 October 1954) USCIB approved the Final Minutes of the 

106th meeting as written. 

USCIB: 5.2/66 - .3 -

CONFIBENFIAL 

--. ..:.~
EX-10.3







Exhibit 10.3


Execution Copy




AMENDMENT No. 6 TO LETTER OF AGREEMENT DCT-026/2003



This Amendment No. 6 to Letter of Agreement DCT-026/2003, dated as of July 18, 2008 (“Amendment 6”)
relates to Letter Agreement DCT-026/2003 between Embraer — Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A.
(“Embraer”) and JetBlue Airways Corporation (“Buyer”) dated June 9, 2003 as amended from time to
time (collectively referred to herein as “Letter Agreement”). This Amendment 6 is between Embraer
and Buyer, collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”.



This Amendment 6 sets forth the further agreement between Embraer and Buyer relative to changes to
Articles 4 and 7 of the Letter Agreement. All capitalized terms used in this Amendment 6 and not
defined herein shall have the meaning given in the Purchase Agreement, and in case of any conflict
between this Amendment 6 and the Letter Agreement, the terms of this Amendment 6 shall control.



Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, which is hereby acknowledged, Embraer and
Buyer hereby agree as follows:




1. Changes to Article 4 of Letter Agreement



1.1 In the third line of the first paragraph of Article 4.a. of the Letter Agreement the words
[***]  shall be deleted and replaced by [***].



1.2 Article 4.d of the Letter Agreement shall be deleted and replaced as follows:



“d. [***]




2. Changes to Article 7 of Letter Agreement



A new item 7.1 shall be added at the end of Article 7 to the Letter Agreement as follows:



“7.1 [***]



All other terms and conditions of the Letter Agreement, which are not specifically amended by this
Amendment 6, shall remain in full force and effect without any change.




[Signature page follows]






 




			
	[***]	 	Represents material which has been redacted and
filed separately with the Commission pursuant to the request for confidential
treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.




 









 









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Embraer and Buyer, by their duly authorized officers, have entered into and
executed this Amendment 6 to the Letter Agreement to be effective as of the date first written
above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Embraer — Empresa Brasileira
de Aeronáutica S.A.	 	 	 	JetBlue Airways Corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Artur Coutinho
	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Mark D. Powers	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Artur Coutinho
	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Mark D. Powers	 	 
	Title:

	 	Executive Vice President of
Industrial Operations
	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Senior Vice President and
Treasurer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ José Luís D. Molina	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	José Luís D. Molina	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	Vice President Contracts
Airline Market	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	July 18, 2008
	 	 	 	Date:
	 	July 18, 2008	 	 
	Place:

	 	São José Dos Campos, Brasil
	 	 	 	Place:
	 	Forest Hills, NY USA	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Witness:

	 	/s/ Rinaldo Piubeli Prado
	 	 	 	Witness:
	 	/s/ Laura King	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Rinaldo Piubeli Prado
	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Laura King
EXHIBIT 32.1





SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


CEO CERTIFICATION





In connection with the annual report of Almaden Minerals Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A-2 for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
  Morgan Poliquin, 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 to my knowledge:




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





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




/s/”Morgan
  Poliquin”Name:
  Morgan PoliquinTitle: Chief
  Executive OfficerOctober 31, 2011