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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       6,275,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,930,000
<PP&E>                                       1,650,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,930,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          267,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,613,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,930,999
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               337,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               332,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01025001.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/250 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/250

---

(2004/C 88 E/0254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0933/04

by John Purvis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Energy from the Commonwealth of Independent States

Subject:

What plans does the Commission have to improve electricity grid connections between the Commonwealth of Independent States and the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

(30 April 2004)

The Commission supports the ongoing study work by the Union for the Co-ordination of the Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) – the body responsible for the co-ordination of the operation of the continental European grid – and its counterparts in Russia and the Newly Independent States on the possibilities of interconnecting the integrated system of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the EU electricity system. Interconnections with Russia and the other CIS (1) countries neighbouring the EU, such as Ukraine, are covered by Annex III (projects of common interest) of European Parliament and Council Decision 1229/2003/EC of 26 June 2003 laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks and repealing Decision No 1254/96/EC (2), and are therefore eligible for possible financial aid.

1

2

However, a clear pre-condition to the integration of the EU electricity market and those of neighbouring countries is the existence of a level playing field, in terms of market and environmental standards, including nuclear safety.

---

(1)  Community of Independent States.

1

(2)  OJ L 176, 15.7.2003.

2

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,

INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

PENTA HOSPITALITY, LLC and

TARUN S. PATEL,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-17354

D.C. No. 3:13-mc-80275-WHA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 14, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

The district court’s order denying the plaintiff an extension of time within

which to file post-judgment motions and closing the case file is vacated.

FILED

NOV 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Page 2 of 3

The district court did not explain why it was strictly enforcing the October

30, 2014, filing deadline, and we cannot infer any reasons from the record to

support such strict enforcement. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d

1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of a time extension is an abuse of discretion if it

is “without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record”). The district

court originally set the October 30 deadline for “[a]ll motions for assigning or

charging orders” in light of a post-judgment examination scheduled for October

27. The plaintiff asserts that it could not file such motions without obtaining

information from the defendant, Tarun Patel, and his business entity, Pracrea Inc.,

at the post-judgment examination, which the district court had ordered Patel and

Pracrea Inc. to attend. After they failed to attend, it was apparent that the

examination would need to be rescheduled and that the filing deadline would

therefore need to be reset to a later date following the rescheduled examination. 

Thus, we cannot infer any plausible reason for insisting on the October 30 deadline

or for severely enforcing it against an otherwise diligent judgment creditor by

closing the case file.

Motions for time extensions should be granted when there is good cause,

construed broadly, and no showing of bad faith or prejudice to the nonmoving

party. Id. at 1259. Here, the district court denied the plaintiff’s request for a time
Page 3 of 3

extension solely for lack of good cause. However, the district court abused its

discretion by summarily rejecting the plaintiff’s explanation that it was moving for

an extension due to the fact that Patel and Pracrea Inc. had failed to appear at the

scheduled examination. There is no indication that the plaintiff’s request was in

bad faith, and an extension would not unduly prejudice the absent defendant

because it was his own failure to appear at the examination that gave rise to the

need to reschedule the examination and reset the deadline in the first place.

VACATED and REMANDED.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2341 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the treatment 

of moving expenses to employees and new appointees in the intelligence 

community who move pursuant to a change in assignment that requires 

relocation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 14, 2021 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. BURR, Mr. SASSE, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. KING, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. BLUNT, Ms. 

COLLINS, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. BENNET, Mr. RISCH, Mr. CASEY, and Mr. 

COTTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

the treatment of moving expenses to employees and new 

appointees in the intelligence community who move pursuant to a change in assignment that requires relocation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Intelligence Commu5 nity Workforce Agility Protection Act of 2021’’. 


dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2341 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF TREATMENT OF MOVING EXPENSES. 

2 (a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to fa3 cilitate the movement of members of the intelligence com4 munity to meet mission critical needs and to reduce unin5 tended tax burdens imposed on public servants in relo6 cating duty stations. 

7 (b) DEDUCTION.—Section 217(k) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘or an em9 ployee or new appointee of the intelligence community (as 

10 defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 

11 (50 U.S.C. 3003)) (other than a member of the Armed 

12 Forces of the United States) who moves pursuant to a 

13 change in assignment that requires relocation’’ after ‘‘to 

14 whom subsection (g) applies’’. 

15 (c) EXCLUSION FOR QUALIFIED MOVING EXPENSE

16 REIMBURSEMENTS.—Section 132(g)(2) of the Internal 

17 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘or an em18 ployee or new appointee of the intelligence community (as 

19 defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 

20 (50 U.S.C. 3003)) (other than a member of the Armed 

21 Forces of the United States) who moves pursuant to a 

22 change in assignment that requires relocation’’ after 

23 ‘‘change of station’’. 


dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2341 IS

1 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
From: Bart Brashers [bbrashers@environcorp.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:40 PM

To: Krivo, Stan; Shepherd, Lorinda; Jill Webster (Jill_Webster@fws.gov)

Cc: Donald Evans; Michael Carbon; Brian Glover; Kyle Heitkamp

Subject: Statoil EGOM PSD Application: Revised Air Quality Impact Assessment

Attachments: Statoil - Revised Air Quality Impact Analysis_June_2013_Update.pdf; 

EGOM_OCS_PM2 5_Report.pdf

Categories: OCS

Stan,

Enclosed please find an revised Air Quality Impact Assessment that reflects the changes to the Statoil 

PSD Application, as per our recent discussions. It refers to the PM2.5 Assessment that you’ve seen 

before, which is also enclosed. I trust that this version of the assessment will allow the application 

process to proceed. A revised modeling DVD will be sent under separate cover to you today.

Jill,

The portions of the enclosed Air Quality Impact Assessment that pertain to Class I Area visibility 

degradation and deposition have not changed since last you saw it, but I wanted to make sure you had a 

chance to comments on the final version.

Bart

Bart Brashers | Atmospheric Scientist

Senior Manager, ENVIRON International Corporation

19020 33rd Ave W Ste 310 | Lynnwood WA 98036

T: +1 425-412-1812 | F: +1 425-412-1840 | M: +1 206-550-2606

bbrashers@environcorp.com

This message contains information that may be confidential, privileged or otherwise protected by 

law from disclosure. It is intended for the exclusive use of the Addressee(s). Unless you are the 

addressee or authorized agent of the addressee, you may not review, copy, distribute or disclose 

to anyone the message or any information contained within. If you have received this message in 

error, please contact the sender by electronic reply to email@environcorp.com and immediately 

delete all copies of the message.
##### 



Exhibit 3.1      
 
 
  First
 FOURTH Capital Stock
 Second
 In Witness Whereof, st
 NORTH FORK BANCORPORATION, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Aurelie S. CampbellAurelie S. CampbellVice President and Corporate Secretary




---



##### 



FIRST Name
 SECOND Address; Registered Agent
 THIRD Purposes




---



##### 



FOURTH Capital Stock
  (A)
    
    the designation of such series in such
manner as shall distinguish shares thereof from all other series,
and the number of shares which shall constitute the initial issue
thereof;(B)
    
    the dividend rights of such series,
including the dividend rate or rates thereon, the time or times at
which such dividends shall be payable, whether such dividends are
cumulative and, if so, on what terms;(C)
    
    the redemption rights of such series, if any, including the price or prices at which and
the terms and conditions on which shares of such series may be redeemed, and whether such
rights may be exercised by the corporation, the holders or both;(D)
    
    the amount payable upon shares of such series in the event of a voluntary or involuntary
liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the affairs of the Corporation;
 3




---



##### 



(E)
    
    sinking fund provisions, if any, for the redemption or purchase of shares of such series;(F)
    
    the conversion rights of such series, if any, including the identity of the security or
securities into which such shares are convertible, the rate or rates of conversion, and the
terms and conditions of conversion;(G)
    
    whether the shares of such series shall have any voting rights in addition to those
prescribed by law, and, if so, the nature of such rights and under what circumstances the
rights may be exercised; and(H)
    
    such other powers, preferences, and relative participating, optional or other special rights
of such series, and the qualifications, limitations, or restrictions of such preferences
and/or rights desired to be so fixed.
    4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



SEVENTH Adoption, Amendment and/or Repeal of By-Laws
 EIGHTH Compromise and Arrangements
 6




---



##### 



NINTH Special Provisions
 TENTH Liability of Directors
 9th
 
 7




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 CERTIFICATION OF DESIGNATION, PREFERENCES AND
RIGHTS OF SERIES A OF JUNIOR PARTICIPATING PREFERRED
STOCK
 of
 NORTH FORK BANCORPORATION, INC.
 
     Designation and Amount
 Dividends and Distributions
 1




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



Voting Rights
   3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



Certain Restrictions
     6




---



##### 



Reacquired Shares
 Liquidation, Dissolution and Winding Up
 7




---



##### 



Consolidation, Merger, etc
 8




---



##### 



No Redemption
 Ranking
 Amendment
 Fractional Shares
 9




---



##### 



NORTH FORK BANCORPORATION, INC./s/ John Adam KanasPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAttest:/s/ Frank A. AndersonSecretary
 10




---



##### 



First
 Second
 Third
  1




---



##### 



Fourth
 17
 By:
    
    /s/ Aurelie S. GrafName:
    
    Aurelie S. GrafTitle:
    
    Corporate Secretary
 2
FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

SPRINGFIELD ENTERPRISES, INC.:

JAMES O. WAANDERS

Indianapolis, Indiana STEPHEN J. HARANTS

Miller & Harants

DONALD J. STUCKEY New Haven, Indiana

Auburn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE J. 

LAURIE COMMERCIAL FLOORS, LLC:

JEREMY J. GROGG

Burt, Blee, Dixon, Sutton & Bloom, LLP

Fort Wayne, Indiana

EDMUND P. KOS

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE JM 

WOODWORKING COMPANY:

W. ERIK WEBER

Mefford, Weber and Blythe, PC

Auburn, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

FRED C. FEITLER, MARY ANNA FEITLER, )

and THE FEITLER FAMILY TRUST, )

)

Appellants/Defendants/Counterclaim )

Defendants/Cross-Claim Defendants, )

)

vs. ) No. 17A04-1206-PL-297

)

SPRINGFIELD ENTERPRISES, INC., )
2

)

Appellee/Plaintiff/Counterclaim )

Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant, )

)

J. LAURIE COMMERCIAL FLOORS, LLC, )

d/b/a JACK LAURIES FLOOR DESIGNS, )

)

Appellee/Counterclaim Plaintiff/ )

Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Third-Party )

Plaintiff/Cross-Claim Defendant, )

)

and )

)

JM WOODWORKING COMPANY, )

)

Appellee/Third-Party Defendant/ )

Cross-Claim Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE DeKALB SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Kevin P. Wallace, Judge

Cause No. 17D01-1003-PL-10

January 23, 2013

OPINION ON REHEARING - FOR PUBLICATION

BRADFORD, Judge

In our original opinion in this case, we concluded, inter alia, that the trial court erred 

in concluding that Appellee JM Woodworking could hold a mechanic’s lien against the 

property of Appellants. JM failed to issue a pre-lien notice, which we concluded it was 

required to do if it wished to hold a mechanic’s lien. JM now seeks rehearing, and we grant 

for the limited purpose of revising our previous disposition of this question. JM contends, 

and Appellants concede, that a pre-lien notice is required only if work is provided to 
3

someone “other than the owner or the owner’s legal representatives[.]” Indiana Code § 32-

28-3-1(i). Having already concluded that the undisputed designated evidence established that 

JM entered into a separate agreement with the Feitlers and that the Feitlers are “owners” 

within the meaning of the mechanic’s lien statute, we now conclude that JM was not required 

to issue a pre-lien notice in order to hold a mechanic’s lien, and therefore now affirm the trial 

court on this point. That said, we also deny Appellee J. Laurie’s rehearing petition in full and 

reaffirm our original opinion in all other respects. 

ROBB, C.J., and BAKER, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             358
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       88
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   496
<PP&E>                                              61
<DEPRECIATION>                                      58
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,681
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            94
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,490)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,285
<SALES>                                            430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   638
<CGS>                                              186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      186
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   221
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (260)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (260)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (260)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
| (1)   | the      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | information      contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the    Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                             /s/ J. Joseph      Burgess                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             J.      Joseph Burgess                                            President and      Chief Executive Officer                                            (Principal      Executive Officer) |
+ _wrr - cu 

·"""'-A-,. 

;. ' ' 

I 

l'>SG NR 02/11 MARCH 55 

.. 

INCOMING MESSAGE 

SECRET 

FM DIRNSA 

'D SUSLO LO NJ?ON 

JR!ORITY 1019052 

w.. 19 2. 

1ERS0NAL CANINE TO FRIEDMAN. 

"1"' (lo 

REF ID:A67709 

EO 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

REUR LW 216. DTG 08l 0082. HAVE NOT. HAD TIME TO DETER MI NF FEASIBIJ.JTY 

PCT ION SUGGESTED• HAVE NO GREAT HOPES OVERCOMING LEGAL BARRIERS BUT 

WULD BE INTERESTED YoU GETTI~ !REACTION. PRESENT IT AS \'OUR 

JDEA WHICH "YOU WISH TO EXPLORE WITII HIM AND WHICH IF HE INTERESTED YoU .. 

WILL DISCUSS WITH ME. 

FOR PULLINGS W REQUIREMENTS THANKS• 

· .Oeclas1ifi ed and a~oved for release by NSA on 01-10-2014 pursuant to E .0. 1352a 

• 

• 
.. #' . - ...---- ~ REF ID:A67709 . ~L,86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3>3 ( h) ( 2)
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 01, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 01, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0123. BROAD STREET SUPERMARKET, INC. d/b/a MOON'S SUPERMARKET 

v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2016CV270693