alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.5
 
                                    CONSENT
 
  I hereby consent to the reference to me in the Schedule 14A of XTRA
Corporation (the "Company") and in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus forming a
part of the Registration Statement on Form S-4 of the Company relating to the
merger of Wheels MergerCo LLC ("MergerCo"), a newly organized Delaware limited
liability company formed solely for the purpose of consummating the
transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger and
Recapitalization, dated as of June 18, 1998, as amended and restated as of
July 31, 1998, between the Company and MergerCo, with and into the Company.
 
 
                                                    /s/ Michael Gross
                                          -------------------------------------
                                                      Michael Gross
 
October 16, 1998
 
 
                                       1
• 

USCIB: 13.5/57 

3 May 1954 

80NPIBEN'i'IAfi 

Ml!MORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Possible Compromise of COMINT Information. 

Reference: USCIB 13.5/43 dated 19 March 1954. 

l. The report and recommendations contained in the reference 

were approved by USCIBEC at its Fourteenth Meeting on 29 April 1954. 

2. Absence of objection by any member prior to 1700, 13 May 

1954, will be considered to constitute USCIB approval of the reference and action in accordance therewith will be initiated. 

USCIB: 13.5/57 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 02-24-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

CO.NFID£.NTIAL
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ALLAIRE
CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          54,407
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (532)
<INVENTORY>                                        104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,429
<PP&E>                                           7,576
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,724)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,012
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           232
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,369
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,602
<SALES>                                          6,963
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,697
<CGS>                                              456
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,962
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,637
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,616)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,616)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,616)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3836

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Daniel Jordan De La Pena-Arcadia, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 23, 2007 Filed: November 28, 2007

___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Daniel Jordan de la Pena-Arcadia ch allenges the 97-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute in excess of 5 kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), and 846. De la Pena-Arcadia’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that de la Pena-Arcadia contends he did not knowingly, intelligently, or vol untarily plead guilty because he was not properly advised due to the ineffective a ssistance of counsel, and suggesting de la-2- Pena-Arcadia should be appoi nted alternative counsel to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. De la Pena-Arcadia’s involuntary-plea cl aim is not cognizable in this direct criminal appeal because he did not move inthe district court to withdraw his guilty plea, seeUnited States v. Murphy , 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990), and he must pursue any ineffective-assistance claims in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see United States v. Cook , 356 F.3d 913, 919-20 (8th Cir. 2004). After reviewing the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We conclude that de la Pena-Arcadia’s sentence, which was at the bottom of the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range, is reasonable. See Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); United States v. Harris , 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. In light of our conclusion that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, we decline to appoint new counsel.

______________________________
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    EXHIBIT 12.1   RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES.

                                                                               For the Years Ended
                                                                                   December 31,
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------
                                                                1997            1996           1995           1994
                                                             ---------        --------       --------       --------
                                                                                  (In thousands)
<S>                                                           <C>              <C>            <C>           <C>
Pretax loss from continuing operations....................    $(168,056)       $(87,986)      $(17,233)     $(1,674)

Add back:
   Losses from less-than-50%-owned persons................        2,286           4,503          4,327          551
   Fixed charges:
     Interest, whether expensed or capitalized, including
       amortization of deferred financing costs...........       43,569          20,756             30           --
                                                              ---------        --------       --------      -------

Adjusted earnings.........................................     (122,201)        (62,727)       (12,876)      (1,123)
Fixed charges.............................................      (43,569)        (20,756)           (30)          --
                                                              ---------        --------       --------      -------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges........................
Amount of coverage deficiency.............................    $(165,770)       $(83,483)      $(12,906)     $(1,123)
                                                              =========        ========       ========      =======
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 11.1**

 

**Cornell Companies, Inc.**

**Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings**

**(in thousands except per share amounts)**

 

 
|                                                                                           |   | **2002**  |   | **2001**    |   | **2000**  |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------|--------|-------------|--------|-----------|--------|
|                                                                                           |   | **Basic** |   | **Diluted** |   | **Basic** |   | **Diluted** |   | **Basic** |   | **Diluted** |   |
| Net Earnings                                                                                   |   | $         | 6,362  |        | $      | 6,362     |   | $ | 4,659 |   | $ | 4,659 |   | $ | 7,969 |   | $ | 7,969 |   |
| Shares used in computing net earnings per share:                                               |   |      |   |        |   |      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average common shares and common share equivalents                                    |   | 14,132    |   | 14,132      |   | 10,624    |   | 10,624 |   | 10,158 |   | 10,158 |   |
| Less effect of treasury shares                                                                 |   | (1,221    | )      | (1,221      | )      | (1,008    | )      | (1,008 | ) | (775 | ) | (775 | ) |
| Effect of shares issuable under stock options and warrants based on  the treasury stock method |   | —    |   | 321         |   | —    |   | 453 |   | — |   | 112 |   |
|                                                                                           |   | 12,911    |   | 13,232      |   | 9,616     |   | 10,069 |   | 9,383 |   | 9,495 |   |
| Net earnings per share                                                                         |   | $         | 0.49   |        | $      | 0.48      |   | $ | 0.48 |   | $ | 0.46 |   | $ | 0.85 |   | $ | 0.84 |   |

 

 

 

----
Good Neighbor Environmental Board

May 25, 2010

Dear friends and colleagues,

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) will issue its thirteenth report, entitled A 

Blueprint for Action on the US - Mexico Border, on June 17, at the Woodrow Wilson Center in 

Washington, DC. We would be honored if you would join our distinguished speakers and

other guests at this event, which is cosponsored with the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute.

GNEB is an independent advisory committee that reports to the President and Congress on 

environmental issues along the U.S.–Mexico border. In this report, the Board responds to the 

charge set by the Council on Environmental Quality to develop actionable recommendations on 

a wide range of environmental issues. An agenda for the event is attached.

Thursday, June 17, 3:00-5:30 p.m.

Fifth-floor conference room

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

One Woodrow Wilson Plaza

1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20004

Please RSVP by June 11 by emailing Ann-Marie Gantner at: 

Gantner.Ann-Marie@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 564-4330.

If you have any questions, please contact Dolores Wesson at:

wesson.dolores@epa.gov

We look forward to your participation.

Paul Ganster Dolores Wesson Andrew Selee

Chair Designated Federal Officer Director, Mexico Institute

 
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD

FIFTH-FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM

WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

One Woodrow Wilson Plaza

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

June 17, 2010

OVERVIEW OF REPORT

(3:00-4:00 PM)

Welcome and Introductions

Dolores Wesson, EPA and Designated Federal Officer, GNEB

Paul Ganster, San Diego State University and Chair, GNEB 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Nancy Sutley, Chair CEQ 

Environmental Protection Agency

Michelle DePass, Assistant Administrator, OITA

United States of Mexico

Enrique Escorza, Head of Section Political and Border Affairs

Questions and answers from the press and the public

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION: A FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE

(4:00-5:30PM)

MODERATOR: Duncan Wood, Director, Department of International Relations, Instituto Tecnólogico Autónomo de 

México (ITAM); Senior Associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); and Senior Advisor, 

Renewable Energy Initiative, Woodrow Wilson Center

Department of State, Office of Mexican Affairs

Russell Frisbie, Washington Liaison, IBWC

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Steve Niemeyer, Manager for Border Affairs 

Gila Resources Information Project, New Mexico 

Allyson Siwik , Executive Director

Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Arizona 

Ann Marie A. Wolf, President 

Cameron County, Texas

John Wood, County Commissioner, Precinct 2
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1655 

To amend the United States Cotton Futures Act to exclude certain cotton 

futures contracts from coverage under that Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2015 

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

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the United States Cotton Futures Act to exclude 

certain cotton futures contracts from coverage under that 

Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUDING CERTAIN COTTON FUTURES CON4 TRACTS FROM COVERAGE UNDER UNITED 

5 STATES COTTON FUTURES ACT. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c)(1) of the United 

7 States Cotton Futures Act (7 U.S.C. 15b(c)(1)) is amend8 ed— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘except that any cotton futures 

10 contract’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘except that— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1655 IS

1 ‘‘(A) any cotton futures contract’’; 

2 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert3 ing ‘‘; and’’; and 

4 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(B) any cotton futures contract that per6 mits tender of cotton grown outside of the 

7 United States is excluded from the coverage of 

8 this paragraph and section to the extent that 

9 the cotton grown outside of the United States 

10 is tendered for delivery under the cotton futures 

11 contract.’’. 

12 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by sub13 section (a) shall apply with respect to cotton futures con14 tracts entered into on or after the date of enactment of 

15 this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
REF ID:A639j 

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 

WASHINGTON 2:5, D. C. 

Ml!HORA.NDUM FOR BOARD mm:ERS: 

SUBJECT: Recent Changes in Board Membership 

20 January 1956 

In connection with the plans for the meeting of the NSA Scientific 

Advisory Board 15-17 February- 1956, it occurs to me that the following changes in the COJD.position ot the Board. may be ot interest to all Board 

members: 

a. The Honorable Donal.d A. Quarles, Secretary ot the Air 

Force, tound it necessary to resign from the Board December 24, 1955. 

b. Dr. Clifford c. Furnas, since l December 1955 Assistant 

Secretary ot Defense, Research and Developnent, has accepted membership on the Board and plana to attend parts of the .:f'orthcoming session. 

c. Mr. William F. Friedman, whQse ~etireinent from active 

Federal Service was announced to you., hae acnepted membership on the 

Board and plans to attend the Februar;v meetings. 

d. Professor J. w. Forrester of Massachusetts Institute of 

'.rechlloloa, who baa been serving as a member of the Electronics Panel., 

has been invited to accept membership on the Board. 

S. IctJLLBAClt 

Executive Secretary NSlSA.B 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-15-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet at September 30, 1997 (unaudited), the Statement of Operations for the
nine months ended September 30, 1997 (unaudited) and the Statement of Cash Flows
for the nine months ended September 30, 1997 (unaudited), and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      19,994,502
<SECURITIES>                                14,727,279
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,005,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                   149,854
<INVENTORY>                                  4,194,909
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               885,069
<PP&E>                                       4,466,967
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,152,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,971,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,065,478
<BONDS>                                         38,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,790
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,855,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,971,528
<SALES>                                      6,306,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,306,264
<CGS>                                        4,034,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,034,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (13,639,980)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (13,639,980)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,999,930)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

Ryder Scott Company
Petroleum Consultants

1100 Louisiana                                              Fax (713) 651-0849
Suite 3800
Houston, TX  77002-5218                               Telephone (713) 651-9191






                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM CONSULTING FIRM




     We consent to the  reference to our name  included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 for Geodyne Institutional/Pension
Energy Income Limited Partnership P-7.


                              //s// Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

                              RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.




Houston, Texas
March 23, 2007
From: <Kyrik.Rombough@state.sd.us> 

To: Gail Fallon/R8/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: <Rick.Boddicker@state.sd.us>, <Brian.Gustafson@state.sd.us> 

Date: 03/20/2012 08:35 AM 

Subject: Regional Haze Information 

Gail: 

 

As discussed, I have attached the NOx BACT application portion for GCC Dacotah’s PSD permit. In 

addition, I have attached an excel spreadsheet with the actual NOx emissions as identified by the 

Continuous Emission Monitoring System. 

 

If you are considering calculating a $ per ton rating for specific control equipment, there a several things 

I think you may want to keep in mind. 

 

1) GCC Dacotah’s Kiln #6 system has three emission points, the alkali bypass, the coal mill and the main 

kiln stack. The spreadsheet does not break the emissions down into each stack. Where and when the 

exhaust gases are removed from the kiln will impact the number and feasibility of any add on controls. 

 

2) The RBLC notes the NOx emission limits for kilns associated with an SNCR with a range from 1.95 

pounds per ton clinker to 8 pounds per ton clinker. Continental Cement – 8.0 lb/ton, Lehigh Cement – 

2.85 lb/ton, Florida Rock – 1.95 lb/ton, Houston American – 1.95 lb/ton, Cemex – 1.95 lb/ton. The three 

plants with the lowest emission rates are for a new kiln system and not a retrofit. I don’t believe you 

can expect a retrofit system to meet what a brand new system would meet. 

 

3) In considering the amount of emission reductions that an SNCR might achieve, multiplying by a 50% 

reduction or some other arbitrary number may not be appropriate. GCC Dacotah’s average emission 

rate based on a 12-month basis has averaged between 2.6 and 3.6 lbs/ton clinker. Comparing GCC 

Dacotah’s actual emission rate compared to recent BACT limits, an SNCR may not achieve any or little 

reductions. 

 

4) In the case of Regional Haze, the rule is designed to improve visibility. Even though one may consider 

the cost on a dollar per ton reasonable, the question still remains is there any perceptible improvement 

in visibility. Our major NOx impacts to our Class I areas occur from outside South Dakota. From South 

Dakota, our major NOx impacts are due to mobile, then followed by natural fires. The emphasis placed 

on such a small contributing source compared to the larger identified sources is not in context with the 

State’s Right in designing how it will meet the requirements of the Regional Haze program. 

 

Kyrik 

 

Kyrik Rombough 

Engineering Manager I 

523 East Capitol 

Pierre, SD 57501 
28.1101-PSD_model_NOX and CO_20020117.pdf 

 

Kiln #6 NOx Rate.xlsx
# CE2004078EN.01064501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/645 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/645

---

(2004/C 78 E/0685)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3792/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino under the Tempus III programme

Subject:

In reply to my earlier question E-1168/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Pesaro had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Tempus III programme, the Commission said on 8 March 2003 that no projects had been submitted.

1

Is the Commission aware of whether, since that date, the municipality has submitted any projects, secured funding and made use of any funds granted?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

(29 January 2004)

It should be noted that municipalities are not eligible for Tempus funding. However, since March 2003, there have been several calls for proposals under the Tempus programme, the most recent being that of 15 December 2003. In response to these calls, the university of Urbino (Università degli studi di Urbino) submitted a proposal for a project involving universities in Spain, Morocco and Malta. The selection procedure has begun and the final decision will be taken in June 2004 to allow projects to get under way during the 2004/2005 academic year.

Projects funded under the Tempus programme generally involve several universities, from both EU countries and partner countries. These projects relate to the development and reform of higher education in those countries which are the final recipients of Community funding.

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 184.

1

---