alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
99-315.

#### Roulet v. AAA Pipe Cleaning Corp.

Cuyahoga App. No. 75425. Reported at 85 Ohio St.3d 1498, 710 N.E.2d 717. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas and Cook, JJ.,

dissent and would grant the motion and hold the cause for the decision in 97-1870, *Burger v. Cleveland Hts.,*Cuyahoga App. No. 72675.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY INCLUDED UNDER ITEM 8 OF THIS 
FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                          16,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,896)
<INVENTORY>                                     54,779
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               140,934
<PP&E>                                         239,059
<DEPRECIATION>                               (173,882)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,109
<BONDS>                                         81,763
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            94
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,870
<SALES>                                        259,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               259,394
<CGS>                                          214,396
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  227,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,353
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   120
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,073
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,735
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,416
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,319
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,177)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.41
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.(a)


Contact:  Global Spill Management, Inc.
          Attention: Desiree Pierson
          (610) 495-8413

June 6, 1997...Global Spill Management, Inc. (GEGI)(OTC) announces that;

a)   Form 10-QSB (for the nine months ended March 31, 1997) was timely filed
     with the SEC on May 14, 1997. GEGI is current in all of its required SEC
     filings;

b)   Negotiations have commenced with several different acquisition candidates.
     A decision with respect to which specific acquisition to consummate will be
     made prior to the close of the current fiscal year on June 30, 1997;

c)   Aggregate indebtedness of approximately $6.7 million at June 30, 1995, has
     been reduced to approximately $62,000;

d)   Final submissions and oral agreements on motions relating to GEGI's action
     commenced in U.S. District Court (EDNY) against the law firm that prepared
     and filed the two Form S-8 Registration Statements with the SEC in August
     and September 1996, covering an aggregate of 1,135,000 shares of GEGI
     Common Stock, are scheduled for August 29, 1997. Also named as parties
     defendant in such action are those persons who received and sold such
     shares. Form S-8 was not available for use by GEGI at such times because
     GEGI was not then current in its required SEC filings. Therefore, none of
     such 1,135,000 shares was validly registered under the 1993 Act and the
     public sale thereof was illegal. The aggregate value of such 1,135,000
     shares (as stated in the two S-8 filings) was approximately $4 million.
     GEGI seeks the recovery of such $4 million and of the 1,135,000 shares;
     and,

e)   GEGI has instituted suit in Philadelphia Federal Court to collect upon
     promissory notes in the amount of $677,000. Such notes were issued to GEGI
     in 1994-5 in connection with the sale by prior management of an aggregate
     of 650,000 shares of GEGI Common Stock. Such notes were not paid at
     maturity and the shares purchased thereby were not returned by GEGI.

                                      ####
# CE2004088EN.01056701.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/567 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/567

---

(2004/C 88 E/0578)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1080/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Human rights defenders

Subject:

The development of guidelines on human rights defenders is one of the stated priorities of the Irish EU Presidency. While the EU has highlighted the importance of the protection of human rights defenders, there is an absence of a specific EU policy that would serve to strengthen the EU's support for human rights defenders throughout the world.

What formal proposals has the Commission received from the Council on this issue? Does the Commission agree that the introduction of such guidelines is necessary in order to enhance the effectiveness of EU human rights policy? Will the Commission address the issue of human rights defenders in its next communication on human rights and democratisation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

(30 April 2004)

The Commission welcomed and fully supports the initiative of the Irish Presidency to adopt EU Guidelines in support of human rights defenders.

Although the Member States and the EU institutions have repeatedly paid tribute to the crucial role played by human rights defenders, the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders will provide a consistent and visible policy to support and protect human rights defenders in the framework of EU relations with third countries and through Community and Member States' assistance programmes.

The political prominence achieved by previous EU Guidelines aimed at the realisation of human rights (such as those on the death penalty, torture and children in armed conflict) underlines the added-value of adopting Guidelines at the EU level.

With regard to the question of the Honourable Member on whether the issue of human rights defenders will be addressed in the next Communication on Human Rights and Democratisation, the Commission is not at present considering a new Communication following its Communication of May 2001 on the ‘EU's role in promoting Human Rights and Democratisation in third countries’ (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 227 E, 24.9.2002.

1

---
RLE• 

11 

SIFICATIOlll Uf'_. 

DISPOSITION FORM ~/~I' 1. , .... , . .:', ) f" I I ~ ' • " ·"' • I .. ,'· "' 

C/S l.' M. S' 

....... 

l. 1n order'° IM1.ls. .... 41• ••uaa or a1111t illtbNd1cm aa1 ~,. rd awt .,lm, -. Cb1el' or ..,,. -n llaft • "90• pro_... . ....._. .11e mta hi.a c11p1Uea .. 1n1o1w111 or •sat .. 111lbll&l _. u.e a1111 atatt 

otttcl&1.8. 

a. Mooldlngl7, t• 18 ~ tm.t tb9 ~ acmwm4 (or bi8 • 

11•1ataU.w) ~ fundlll1 • ata. • wa •*•• •-' to -* b1Ut1.a1t 0Uld9lw, or OGMl&lWm la wldch tlle Dlnctor la .lMIOlftt, • 11.1ns 8Q 

dllld.•I .. r11n!w4 ~ paltcd9e, p1.mm, ..,.u.-, ar at\liJlt -•• of 

..U.. . ~ eo .- ""'8rami ldu. Ucm, _. ...,_.. ot dl-1'lcli6, M la -1--_. •HltW71 ...e 1le IMJ.Ull84. 

. J. .. p: •••• ot a. Cider 'flt •dt er e1v.. ·or Jdll D1paUa9 • a -.u.. ._.a .i, .. _. w. ftlldda._. 

.,-

. ; 

'. 

. --~~..,....,...~ ......... ~__,..---,-,..,,.....,~....,,.,,,....,,...,.....,,........,....,....-~~~---,,,,,....,,..---,-,,..,,,,..,,,..,. 

roved for Release b NSA on 05-28-2014 ursuantto E.O. 1352 

• 

:·~: • • , •.. , .... 4 ,. ·--····-··-
<PAGE>



                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-21075, 333-68121 and 333-70445) and Form S-3
(No. 333-69151) of International Network Services of our report dated July 23,
1999 (except Note 10 which is dated as of August 9, 1999) relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which
appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

     /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

San Jose, California
August 25, 1999
GECRElJ 

S'luadron Leader A. D. R. caroe 

no,/n.1 Air Foroe Dolecation 

Box 772 

Benjamin Fra."lklin Station 

··D.Shint;ton, n.c. 

Doo.r Cnroe 1 

?.larch 11,. 104~ 

I ha.vo postponed aoknC1111'ledc1ng roooipt or your letter 

of :!'ebr.mr-J .1a, mitil the copy or n!:oc1orandum on Siena.ls 

· and CJ1>her Soouri ty" aotuall,; o.n-ived. It has now com 

o.nd appoo.ra to contain interestinc mterial. I hope to 

r,et tho opportunity to look it aver cnrofull;r within tho 

next day or two. · 

T"LlAJlkinc -,,ou veq mch tor your courtesy• I O.."l 

BECRElJ 

fiineerely yours, 

ii11HAr.i P • I'riod:a.."l 

Director of Communications 

ReBeO.rch 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 03-25-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
-

f'p··· 

UR REF1 

REF 

TELEPHONE HOBART 9000 

Box 772 

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN STATION 

WASHINGTON. D. C, 

ROYAL AIR FORCE DELEGATION 

SECRE'P 

R REF• A.22,918/42/ADRC 

Dear~-~ ' -

February 18th, 

1 9 4 3 

We have just received from Cairo some copies of a tt:Memorandum on Signals and Cypher Security" pre- pared by our Signals Security section there and published 

as SDME.0508. As I_ think this would interest you, I am 

sending a copy of it (through the formal channel established 

for registered documents) to the Directorate of Communications, Army Air Forces, with the request that it be forwarded 

to you. 

This booklet reflects requirements which the RAF 

has found to be necessary in areas of mobile warfare where 

landlines are comparatively few, and the most up-to-date equipment is not always available. 

Mr. W. F. Friedman,,_ 

Arlington Hall Station, 

Arlington, Virginia 

Yours Y 

!Wi~ ~--~
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

NIRMAL SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71185

Agency No. A073-428-644

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Nirmal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in

absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

SEP 29 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71185

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894

(9th Cir. 2003), and de novo due process claims, Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d

1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen

because Singh concedes that he was personally served with the order to show cause

and a hearing notice. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1)–(2) (repealed 1996) (written

notice “shall be given in person to the alien (or, if personal service is not

practicable, such notice shall be given by certified mail to the alien or to the alien’s

counsel of record, if any)”); cf. Dobrota v. INS, 311 F.3d 1206, 1212-13 (9th Cir.

2002) (due process violated where petitioner did not receive order to show cause or

hearing notice and those documents were not served on his counsel). Singh’s due

process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error to prevail on due process claim). Because Singh received actual

notice of his hearing, we reject his argument concerning 5 U.S.C. § 500(f). 

We lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s contention that the asylum officer 
3 08-71185

who personally served Singh with the order to show cause violated 8 C.F.R. §

242.1(c) because he failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron

v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1579** 

KATHERINE W. BROOKS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. RAY MABUS, The United States of America (Department of the Navy) , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:11

- cv - 00320

- AWA

- TEM )

Submitted : September 25, 2012 Decided: October 1 5 , 2012

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Katherine W. Brooks , Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson , Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Norfolk , Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Katherine W. Brooks appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant in her civil action under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e

- 17 (West 2003 & Supp. 201 2 ) , and
the Age Discrimination in Emp loyment Act of 1967, as amended,
29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621

- 34 (West 2008 & Supp. 2012) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Brooks v. Mabus , No. 2:11

- cv - 00320

- AWA

- TEM (E.D. Va.
Mar. 2 & 5, 2012) . We 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
.- Jr 0 

OFFlCE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

em&me-- 

-aEoiorablo z?mast Gu.itm 

Countp Attornay 

county 

Your roqImt for en .o 

Ti?m g?mla jury ire8 to bo appointed 

ITS a aqdp uharlft, w der to aselat the 

shdfr 0n WSX~~US 33t he is not enfia.agcd 

ln diacharglng his dut 

&five been roquoo 

he amy be appo 

122 and MO. O-373. 

laatenoes in &oh pay 

I was wonderlri 

in a oeoe where tha 

@and jury bailiff, 

ny eroaeua QO.00 a 

o fact thst the CCrmi.ssi~ers~~Court 

tho pay or deputies, would it be 

their pr~mlssio~ for appolutmnt of 

in,cur opinion 80. O-373 that the Cosstltutloo. 

Of Tsxae prohibits a da3uty shcxiff fron saroine a8 bailiff30 

th.o eand jury o&d aoooptin& pny for both Ofi’iioe~. kie llkuwioa 

held in suoh oplnlotl that a deputy bharlf$ and a grand. jury 

bailifr WQ both Oiflocm or the Btate. 

.,.. ‘, . 

1 

‘L- 
Honorable Pnsst G&m, page 2 

Artlolss 367 and Jb’?b, Code of Crfmlnal Prooadure, 

rortho l p~ointmant of grand Jury baiUfrrr Artlola 368, 

Crlmlnsl froccdure, prcrldeo: 

WA ,ballltr 1s to obey the lmtruot1or.s of the fore%ui, 

rmmon all wltn45se8, and, gencriiUj, to perrorm all 

auoh dutlcs as the iorenan my requlib of him. One bailiff 

&all bo alwayr with the grand Jury, it two or more are 

appolnt4cLw 

Thus it Is a&amt that a mai jurv balllii ia subjeot at all tlznos to tho pokformauoe of hir duti’em am suoh during 

the period the grand jury is *.in se~elon, 

A deputy ohorltf la subject to the orders or thr 

sherlrf and could be rcqulxcjd b the sheriff to poiiorm osrtala 

duties even thou& he.qae enti d od to no salary therefor. It 

.that thcr&zlght be & oonfllot between 

WY. Ii th6 sheriff-should oall upon 

a duty during tho time ot hi8 remlo@ to 

would be suoh a oouillot of authority aa 

1s pooslble thorizforo 

the ohcriif and tg?md 

Ns doputy to pertarm 

the grad jury, there 

to icnder the 0rfi00ti lnoompat lble . 

Ke held In __ 

our’ opinion no. O-1263 that a de ty sheriff 

could not hold a aomxaalon aB a speoial Rawer e~oh t r owh he 

0;~s to draw no ‘pay faF the latter poaltioa. Fi6 believe uoh 

opinion forcoloses the questlau aubmltted and required o zr aaswer 

ln the ao&lve, w4 4nolo~s a oopy of sUOh opinion rar your 

ooneldcratlon. 

In view of our nnffwer to your first quastloai It 18 

unneosssary to an@mr the oeoond question submttted. 

Yours r&y truly
98-1755.

#### State ex rel. Schmieder v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 97APD05-662. Reported at 85 Ohio St.3d 389, 708 N.E.2d 1004. On motion for reconsideration by Daimler Chrysler Corporation. Motion denied.

Resnick and Cook, JJ., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                 672,769
<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-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
*Monday, June 28, 1999*

MOTION DOCKET

99-1141.

#### Kagy v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth.

Fulton App. No. 99-FU-10. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal from the Court of Appeals for Fulton County. Upon consideration of appellants’ motion to stay court of appeals’ judgment and trial court action pending appeal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to stay be, and hereby is, granted.

F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

Resnick, J., not participating.
... . . -~"284 

USCIB: 29.20/ll 

17 May 1955 

'fOP SE6ll:E'i' 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ~.iEMBERS CF USCIB: 

Subject: Status of UKUSA COMINT Units in Germany. 

The enclosed memorandum. by the J;)epartment of State Member is forwarded for consideration by USCIB in connection with Item 3 of the Agenda 

for the 115th Meeting. 

Enclosure 

Department of State Memo 

d~ted 16 May 1955. 

USCIB: 29.20/11 

ap a.in, U. s. Navy 

EXl!l~ive Secretary, USCIB 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-16-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

l'OP SECRET 

,..., II 

,_ ·, 
-~84 

e 

SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE 

WASHINGTON 

Ml!MORA.NDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, USCIB 

SUBJECT: Status of UKUSA COMINT Units in Germ.any 

REFERENCE: USCIB 29.20/6 and attachment 

MAY 16 1955 

The conclusion that the attachment to the reference 

does not at this time present a specific problera for Board 

consideration appears to be correct. However, paragraph 9c 

of the attachment seems to imply that NATO has no interest 

at all in these units. I am informed that this is not 

entirely accurate. 

A resolution of the North Atlantic Council adopted 

on October 22, 1954 in implementation of agreements reached 

at the London Parley states that all forces in the area 

of the Allied Command Europe shall be placed under SACEUR 

or other appropriate NATO command except for forces def ending overseas territories and other forces which the 

Council has or will recognize as suitable for national 

command. NATO members are asked to report the forces in 

the area retained. under national command together with 

a broad statement of the reasons for doing so. If, as 

is probable, the U.S. does not wish to place all CCMINT 

units in Germany under NATO authority, this resolution 

requires that fact to be reported. This applies also to 

similar units in Greece and Turkey and to those to be 

established in Italy or BIJ.Y other NATO country. 

The U.S. has not filed· any report under paragraph 5 

and, we are advised, probably will not do so until the 

details of SACEUR 1s recently increased authority are 

worked out. Meanwhile, I recommend that USCIB, through 

its military members, alert the appropriate U.S. military 

authorities in NATO to the COMINT aspect of this requirement. 

(Signed) 

W. Park Armstrong, Jr. 

Department of State Member 

'Enclosure with USCJB 29.20/11 dtd 17 May 1955. 

TOP SECRE'f'
<PAGE>
                                     






                                                                 Exhibit 12(a)


                           XEROX CREDIT CORPORATION
              COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                (In Millions)


                         Nine Months Ended
                            September 30,        Year Ended December 31,
                             1998   1997     1997   1996   1995   1994   1993
Income before income taxes  $ 101  $  93    $ 123  $ 123  $ 119  $ 147  $ 154

Fixed Charges:
Interest expense (2)
  Xerox debt                   14      3        3      5      6      5      4
  Other debt                  164    159      214    199    213    197    205
    Total fixed charges       178    162      217    204    219    202    209

Earnings available for
 fixed charges              $ 279  $ 255    $ 340  $ 327  $ 338  $ 349  $ 363

Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges (1)           1.56   1.57     1.57   1.60   1.54   1.73   1.74


(1)  The ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been computed by dividing 
total earnings available for fixed charges by total fixed charges.

(2)  Debt has been assigned to discontinued operations based on the net assets 
of the discontinued operations and the debt-to-equity ratios in accordance 
with the Company's guideline. Beginning in 1995, the amount of interest 
expense that would have been allocated to discontinued operations was 
insignificant and therefore is now being reported within continuing operations 
and included in the fixed charges. Discontinued operations consist of the 
Company's third party financing and real estate businesses.















 







                                      (13)