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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,508,000
<SECURITIES>                                13,025,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,315,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,923,000
<PP&E>                                      68,977,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (31,579,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              65,321,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,419,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,784,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                65,321,000
<SALES>                                     27,344,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,344,000
<CGS>                                       24,221,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,221,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (125,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,539,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,239,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,300,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,300,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.5

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


As independent  auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report,  dated March 6, 1998 on the combined  financial  statements  of Tele
Cable  de  Morelos,  S.A.  de C.V.  and  related  companies  (all of  which  are
subsidiaries of Megapo  Comunicaciones de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.) included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K, into previously  filed  Registration  Statement File
Nos. 33-81876, 33-87326, 333-00226, 333-68641 and 333-71963.


                              GALAZ, GOMEZ MORFIN, CHAVERO, YAMAZAKI, S.C.


Acapulco, Mexico
May 11, 1999
~4 

USCIB: 29.13/3 

30 September 1954 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

MEMORANDtM FOR THE MmmERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: 

1. The enclosed proposal of the Director, NSA is forwarded. for 

consideration. 

2. It is requested that the members execute the attached vote 

sheet and return it to this office by the close of business Friday, 

S October 1954. 

3. THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENT CONTAINS CCJOOJNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE 

INFORMATION AND SHALL BE HANDLED ONLY IN CHANNELS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED 

FOR COMINT. 

Enclosure 

NSA Memorandum., 

subject as above, 

dtd 24 Sep 1954. 

USCIB: 29 .13/3 
EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

RL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

l4SEP 1954 

MF.MORANDUM FOR 'NIE MEMBERS OF USCIB 

2. The fallowing proposals, in ~he order o.f desirabilit;y, \.are 

s u.lJmi t ted ta USCIB for cons lrlcra t ion as the U. S. po:.;.L ti on conce1~ning inform-1tion and material in the COMii'.J'P field which may be\ ma.de 

available: 

a. Nothin~ be ~lven 

b. If necessary, monetary reimbursement 

c. If necessary, mane;/ and col"IIr.unications equipment 

3. The quid pro quo should be 11.eld to the n1m.murn consistent 

with securing the baSe ri~hts; the release of raw traffic should be 

considered only if" base rights ca.!l be secured if no other way, AJ 1 

possible assurances should be obtained from the~-~~~~~~~~~--' 

authorities that they will safee;u:ird ull materials received, will 

not make them available to any other pouer, and wlll conceal the _ 

existence of the Aeree.m~nt wit~ the U, S. 

!Ci' SEC!t!!:!' CON'rROL l'lUl.llBER 5li-2615A 

COP~ a-¥ , OF 4 8 COPIES 

PAGE 1 .. OF 2 PAGES 

TOP SECRET 

\ 
• 

-. REF ID:A60903 8ECR ~. 

4. I reconuncna that tl1e memlJera ol' USCIU a prove this pa er 

as the U. S. position conccrnini.:; the r~lcasc o 

5. A.pproval is requested f'or the nomination of Captain Wesley 

A. Wright, u. S . .Navy, and Mr. 1i'rcd Woodrul'.f, as technical advlsor 

and alternate respectiye!y. in the u. S. 

Ambasso.dorJoJL.. ----------' 

.. 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

"""e"'"!"-S""'!Jo""'Cl~e..l.Jl,l~~coN rnOL NUMB.ER 5b. -2615A 

~ V OF !~8 COPIES 

PAG~ 2 OF 2 PAGES 

COPY 

---

TOP SECRET
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 10716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04098]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 27, 2015, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Network Centric Operations 
Industry Consortium, Inc. (``NCOIC'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Kaltura, Inc., New York, NY; McClure, 
Brown & Associates LLC, Chantilly, VA; Tom Forrest, LLC, Thousand Oaks, 
CA; and Humanity Road, Boydton, VA, have been added as parties to this 
venture.
    In addition, Fimeccanica, Roma, Italy; and FacetApp LLC, Seattle, 
WA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and NCOIC intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 19, 2004, NCOIC filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5486).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 14, 
2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 5, 2014 (79 FR 65703).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-04098 Filed 2-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 10715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04099]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Members of SGIP 2.0, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 14, 2015, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Members of SGIP 2.0, Inc. 
(``MSGIP 2.0'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Cetecom, Milpitas, CA; and PG&E, San Francisco, CA, have 
been added as parties to this venture. Also, Smarthome Laboratories, 
Boulder, CO; Gridtest Systems, Inc., Westlake Village, CA; Eaton 
Corporation, Arden, NC; Hypertek, Inc., North Potomac, MD; Pepco 
Holdings, Inc., Washington, DC; Schneider Electric, Norcross, GA; 
SunSpec Alliance, Scotts Valley, CA; Tendril, Boulder, CO; American 
Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), Frederick, MD; PPL 
Corporation, Louisville, KY; Alliant Energy, Madison, WI; EnerNOC, 
Inc., Boston, MA; and Newport Consulting Group, San Francisco, CA, have 
withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and MSGIP 2.0 intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 5, 2013, MSGIP 2.0 filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on March 7, 2013 (78 FR 14836).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 27, 
2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on December 2, 2014 (79 FR 71447).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-04099 Filed 2-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7420

ERIC SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EUGENE NUTH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-95-1885-JFM)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Smith v. Nuth, No. CA-95-1885-JFM (D. Md. Aug. 3, 1995). We

deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
The following Public Notice was published in the following newspapers:

Indianapolis Star — October 15, 2012
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette — October 16, 2012
Evansville Courier — October 18, 2012
Post Tribune (NW Indiana) — October 18, 2012

In the notice, please note that comments will be accepted until November 26, 2012.

### PUBLIC NOTICE: AUTHORIZATION OF INDIANA'S STATE HAZARDOUS

WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM What is United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) doing through this notice? In accordance with Title 40 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Part 271.21, the U.S. EPA Regional Administrator is giving notice of their decision, subject to public review and comment, that the State of Indiana's revised hazardous waste management program satisfies all of the requirements for authorization under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 

### What changes to the State of Indiana Authorization are included in this revision? The State program revision includes, but is not limited to, the following provisions: Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIF) Including BIF/MACT; Recycled Zinc Fertilizers; Modification of the Manifest; Standardized RCRA Permit; Academic Labs Rule. 

### Why are the revisions necessary? These State program revisions are necessary to maintain equivalency of State and Federal programs due to changes in U.S. EPA's regulations. 

### Where can the public review copies of the Indiana application? Copies of Indiana's revised program application are available from 9:00 am to 4:00 p.m. at the following addresses for inspection and copying: Online at www.regulations.gov , docket EPA-R05-RCRA-2012-0377. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 100 North Senate, Indianapolis, Indiana; Contact Dan Watts (317) 234-5345. Mr. Gary Westefer (LR-8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd, 8 th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604; Phone: (312) 886-7450. 

### Where can the public send comments to? And by when? Comments will be accepted on Indiana's revised hazardous waste program until November 26, 2012. Submit comments to: Mr. Gary Westefer (LR-8J), Indiana Regulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60604. Or at www.regulations.gov , docket EPA-R05-RCRA-2012-0377. 

### More About Indiana's Program Indiana has been operating the Hazardous Waste Program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) since January 31, 1986. The State of Indiana rules covering the RCRA Federal regulations are found at 329 IAC (Indiana Administrative Code) 3.1 and 329 IAC 13.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL DATA AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 ARE
DERIVED FROM OUR AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, INCLUDED ELSEWHERE IN THIS ANNUAL
REPORT, AND ARE QUALIFIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,499<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                    24,637
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,642
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,364
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,534
<PP&E>                                           2,081
<DEPRECIATION>                                     733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,501
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,658
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,206
<SALES>                                         29,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,528
<CGS>                                           23,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    120
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,652
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,652
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,652
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.38<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35<F2>
<FN>
<F1>All financial data is prepared in accordance with Canadian GAAP. For a
description of the material differences between Canadian GAAP and U.S. GAAP,
see note 16 of the notes to our audited financial statements, included
elsewhere in this annual report.
<F2>1,000:1 multiplier is not applicable.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### John Szafranski, Plaintiff, v Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority et al., Defendants. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Tvga Engineering, Surveying, P.C., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[773 NYS2d 715]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Salvatore R. Martoche, J. ), entered August 14, 2003. The order granted third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

*1114Same memorandum as in *Szafranski v Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth.*([appeal No. 1] 5 AD3d 1111 [2004]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information  extracted from Winthrop
Residential  Associates I, A Limited Partnership and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             463,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     872,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                            289,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                         514,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       872,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    39,000
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (40,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (40,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (40,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (1.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.48)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7030

MARQUISE LEON NELSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF VIRGINIA; EARL R. BARKSDALE; J. JACK KENNEDY, JR.; 

T. DORTON; SONNIA SUGGS; CHAD DOTSON; PATRICIA L. 

HARRINGTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (7:16-cv-00055-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 13, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marquise Leon Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marquise Leon Nelson appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find that 

this appeal is frivolous, and we dismiss the appeal for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Nelson v. Virginia, No. 

7:16-cv-00055-JPJ-RSB (W.D. Va. July 21, 2016). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
SBeliif 

CWSlPICA-tfiOlf OF SCAMP WBKDIQ PAPEm 

AG ll ,eb 55 

Col. CampbeJ:l./A11/6o235fmp 

l. !he 1954 SCAMP Vorklllg Papers were re-viewed by the -Claa11f1cation Ad•isory 

Panel on 10 Februs:ry 1955 for the purpose of determining the proper clasaif'1cation 

ot the •ub.ject papers. '1!hm following members together v:lth representat1-tea from 'B/D. 

wre in attendance: 

Mr. Priedman (Cbairman) 

Kr. Cellimahoa (TllG) 

Mr. Bilsboa (sm) 

Dr. Shaw {Pll>D) 

Colonel Campbell (AG) 

Major Carson (P}P) 

Dr. laeibler (~) 

Dr. Blank1nabip ( R/D) 

~. Tb& Panel approved the following act1on.1': 

fl. tl.e ot PaP!r 

Preaent Apprc>Ted 

C:laasit'ication Clae•itication 

No. l. 

No. 2. 

Bo. 3. 

No. 4. 

No. 5• 

Jlo. 6. 

No. 7. 

lo. 6. 

Cyclie Phenomena in the Partition Function S 

Blcbaustive Search !'eelm1que "for Sboelace c 

On Statistic• ot an UnknGwri Bollgh Population c 

On the Sum of Pel'llUtat1on Matrices C 

Modification of the Simple (ltod 2) Koken Maebtne S 

J(C)d1ficat1on of the Sim;ple (Mod 2) Koken .Machine II S 

Some P.ropert1e• ot PeZ'JllUtation& S 

Plat Permutation Distribution Katt-ices C 

u 

s 

c 

* ** ** * ** 

lote•: * Baaed on the 1nterp-retat1on by the PK>D Re-pnaentativ. of pa.rasraph 16, 

appendiX B of the UBJJSA agreement 1 these papers ehoul.4 be claasified Top Seeret Code• 

word. Dr. Leibler of B/D did not agree with this interpretation. In T1ew of the 

divergent Tiews of the Pan.el on the claeeificat1on of tbeee papers, the Chairman 

reg,uested R/D and PmD to present their Views in writing for hther eTal.uation. In 

the event a elear-eut dec111on cannot be obtaine4 within BSA, the matter ia to be 

•ubmitted to U3CIB tor an interpretation of pa2"11Craph 16 ot appendix B. 

** '!he Pan.el agreed cm the elaasification ot these t!mee papere. However 1 

inasmuch u they deal primarily vi th COMSIC matter• and COJero is not represented 

on the pnaent Panel, the Ch&il'man diftcted that tbeae papers be tonarded to OQllSS: 

for comment or conourrence in preaent claaaitioation. 

3. The Chairman 1eQ.l»&ted Dr. Leibler to recall all. ccp1ea o'f papers Bo. 1'. and 

7 in "riev of the po1'11bill ty tbat they may become !op Seeret Codeword. material and 

should, therefo~, not be given i.1str1but1on outside of NBA.. 

Gll> c~ • .B. CAMP.BELL £e~ ~ ~1Y"" Col.on.el I AGC J.J\ 'l cc: 

ea inn conaerned 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 02-11-2014 pursuant to E .0. 1352a 

"