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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      52,380,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               88,632,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 6,425,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           150,161,000
<PP&E>                                      72,434,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,611,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             797,940,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       72,536,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   313,558,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,330,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               797,940,000
<SALES>                                    492,354,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           492,354,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              418,668,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,629,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          17,997,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             53,060,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                23,694,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         29,366,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                28,989,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.22


</TABLE>
## AIR QUALITY DIVISION

2015

Technical Analyses and Information Supporting the

Designation Recommendation for Oklahoma



### 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary NAAQS

for

Noble, Choctaw, and Muskogee Counties

In Oklahoma

Submitted to EPA

September 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          26,914
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,384
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    202,134
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               256,792
<PP&E>                                         176,047
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 423,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,736
<BONDS>                                         28,494
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           193
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   423,957
<SALES>                                        696,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               696,107
<CGS>                                          426,196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  239,228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,991
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,952
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,039
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,039
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.78



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997    
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                        11,020         
<SECURITIES>                  0              
<RECEIVABLES>                 29,604         
<ALLOWANCES>                  3,959          
<INVENTORY>                   8,540          
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              61,277         
<PP&E>                        329,676        
<DEPRECIATION>                130,638        
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                281,937        
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         44,334         
<BONDS>                       0              
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0              
<PREFERRED>                   0              
<COMMON>                      189            
<OTHER-SE>                    109,255        
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  281,937        
<SALES>                       29,273         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              176,863        
<CGS>                         17,439         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 90,879         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0              
<LOSS-PROVISION>              455            
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            6,869          
<INCOME-PRETAX>               28,740         
<INCOME-TAX>                  9,252          
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           19,488         
<DISCONTINUED>                0              
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0              
<CHANGES>                     0              
<NET-INCOME>                  19,488         
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 1.07           
<EPS-DILUTED>                 1.03           
        


</TABLE>
March 25, 2011 

Esta Rosenberg, Chief 

U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

 Re: American Airlines, Request for Consolidated 

 U.S.-Mexico Certificate (Streamlining Docket 

 DOT-OST-2005-22228)________________________ 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

 Under the Department’s February 13, 2009 Notice in the 

above-referenced docket, American Airlines hereby requests that 

its U.S.-Mexico exemption authority be consolidated into its 

U.S.-Mexico certificate for Route 560 (Order 2000-5-31, timely 

renewal application pending in DOT-OST-1999-6172). We are not 

seeking consolidation of our U.S.-Mexico certificate for Route 

628, which we wish to keep separate. 

 We request that the following exemptions be consolidated 

into Route 560: 

 Chicago-Cancun (year-round), DOT-OST-2000-8101 

 

 Chicago-Cozumel (seasonal), DOT-OST-2010-0247 

 Chicago-Puerto Vallarta (seasonal), DOT-OST-2002-13389 

 Dallas/Ft. Worth-Cozumel (year-round), DOT-OST-2002-13389 

 Dallas/Ft. Worth-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo (seasonal), DOT-OST- 

 2003-16495 

 Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo (year-round), DOT-OST- 

 2000-8361 
- 2 - 

 Our request is consistent with the Department’s streamlining policy, and with U.S.-Mexico route consolidation granted 

to other carriers, including JetBlue (Order 2009-9-4), Delta Air 

Lines (Order 2010-3-12), and United Air Lines (Order 2010-5-17). 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 Carl B. Nelson 

 Associate General Counsel 

 American Airlines, Inc. 

 1101 17th Street, N.W. 

 Suite 600 

 Washington, D.C. 20036 

 (202) 496-5647 

 carl.nelson@aa.com 

cc: Docket Branch 

 Paul Gretch 

 Linda Lundell 

 Service List 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by email 

on the following persons: 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com jhill@dlalaw.com 

scott.mcclain@delta.com bill@mietuslaw.com 

sametta.c.barnett@delta.com mgoldman@sgbdc.com 

kquinn@pillsburywinthrop.com rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 

bkeiner@crowell.com dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com 

esahr@eckertseamons.com mcmillin@woa.com 

bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com eskraft@jamhoff.com 

jeffrey.manley@united.com dpdean@jamhoff.com 

bob.kneisley@wnco.com dkirstein@yklaw.com 

robert.land@jetblue.com jyoung@yklaw.com 

msinick@ssd.com donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov 

cdonley@ssd.com dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil 

gbleopard@fedex.com john.allen@faa.gov 

dvaughan@kelleydrye.com urskr@state.gov 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com recohn@hoganlovells.com 

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com 

lhalloway@crowell.com pmurphy@lopmurphy.com 

efaberman@wileyrein.com lachter@starpower.net 

mroller@rollerbauer.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com 

howard.kass@usairways.com rpommer@atlasair.com 

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com gmurphy@crowell.com 

dan.weiss@coair.com russell.bailey@alpa.org 

david.heffernan@wilmerhale.com 

                

     ________________________________   

CARL B. NELSON   

March 25, 2011
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Green Oaks Concepts,  Ltd.,
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  Daniel L. Hodges, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

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

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


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 15 , 2018

NO. 03 - 17 - 0080 6 - CR
Christopher Lynn Newberry, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 403RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUS TICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND TOTH MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIE D , AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction r en d ered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court ho lds that there was no error i n the court’s judgment requiring reversal

. However, there was error in the judgment that requires correction. Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court’s judgment in trial court cause number D

- 1

- DC

- 16

- 301 799 to indicate that appellant was found guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon ,
a second

- degree felony , pursuant to Texas Penal Code section 22.02(a)( 2 )

. The judgment, as modified , is affirmed

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
EX-10.03



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE 
 TO THE 

WEST CORPORATION NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, West Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), maintains the West Corporation Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective as of
March 27, 2013 (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VIII of the Plan, the Company has the
authority to amend the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board has authorized an amendment of the Plan to provide participants in
the Plan with the right to elect the form of notional investment for any dividend equivalent payments credited to each participant’s Deferral Account arising from the vested portion of a participant’s notional investment in the
Company’s common stock, in accordance with the terms of this Amendment. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the
Plan hereby is amended, effective as of April 24, 2013, as follows: 
  
 1. Section 3.3 is hereby amended to add the following new paragraph at the end thereof: 
 “Notwithstanding any then-current or prior Investment Designation, each Participant may elect to direct the notional investment of the Dividend Equivalent arising from the vested portions of the
notional investments in Common Stock to be notionally invested in Measurement Funds or Common Stock in accordance with this Section 3.3 and procedures established by the Company.” 

2. Section 3.4 is hereby amended to add the following new subsection (c) at the end thereof 

“(c) For purposes of the Plan, Earnings on Common Stock shall include cash dividends payable to holders of Common Stock
(“Cash Dividends”), and each Participant’s Deferral Account that is deemed to be notionally invested in Common Stock as of the close of business on the applicable record date for a Cash Dividend shall be credited on the payment
date for such Cash Dividend with an amount equal to the per share value of the Cash Dividend multiplied by the number of shares of Common Stock in which the Deferral Account is deemed to be notionally invested (the “Dividend
Equivalent”); provided, however, that (i) the Dividend Equivalent shall be subject to the same payment and other Plan terms that apply to the shares of Common Stock to which the Dividend Equivalent relates; (ii) any
Dividend Equivalent attributable to any unvested Employer Matching Contributions shall vest, if applicable, or be forfeited, if applicable, at the same time and on the same basis as the underlying Employer Matching Contribution; and
(iii) unless otherwise directed pursuant to an investment election 







 
made available to Participants pursuant to Section 3.3, the Dividend Equivalent shall be notionally invested in additional shares of Common Stock. The Participant shall not be eligible for
Employer Matching Contributions on any Dividend Equivalent notionally invested in Common Stock.” 
 *** 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized agent on this 24th
day of April, 2013. 
  

			
	WEST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Paul M. Mendlik
	Name: Paul M. Mendlik
	Title: Chief Financial Officer



  
 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2101

ROY L. PERRY-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus LIEUTENANT J. R. JASINOWSKI, Virginia State Police; W. RABORGE, Virginia State Police; S. WALKER, Officer, Portsmouth Police Department; F. D. DAVIS, Magistrate, Fourth Judicial District; PATRICIA H. O'BOYLE, Commonwealth Attorney's Office; KARIN HORWATT, Commonwealth Attorney's Office; THE HONORABLE PAUL FRAIM, Mayor, City of Norfolk; HAROLD P. JUREN, ESQUIRE, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-509-2) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 21, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy L. Perry-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. James Christian Stuchell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Alfred William Bates, III, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Portsmouth, Virginia; Jeff Wayne Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach,- 2 - Virginia; Melvin Wayne Ringer, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Roy L. Perry-Bey appeals the district court’s judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissing Perry-Bey’s civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the report and recommendation, the district court’s order and the record and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See PerryBey v. Jasinowski , No. CA-04-509-2 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 20, 2005; entered Sept. 21, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# NGB partners with national firm to assist Guard job seekers

/ Published Dec. 22, 2017

ARLINGTON, Va. – In a ceremony at the Pentagon, National Guard Bureau leadership recently signed a memorandum of understanding with FASTPORT, a national employment services company, in an effort to provide Guard members additional outlets and resources while searching for civilian employment opportunities. 

The partnership between the NGB and FASTPORT is one of a number of partnerships designed to provide Guard members the ability to connect with civilian employers. 

"We have a number of different partners we work with," said Steve Kett, the director of employment support at the NGB. [This partnership is] one more arrow in the quiver."

The recently-signed memorandum delineates an agreement to explore, promote, and improve military hiring initiatives in multiple industry sectors, said Kett.

"We get a larger footprint and a large foot in the door," he said, adding that a meaningful civilian job is inherent to maintaining readiness. 

"One of the huge keys to retention and recruitment is having a civilian job," Kett said.

More than 70 percent of Guard members serve part time, said Air Force Brig. Gen. Jessica Meyerann, the vice director of personnel with the NGB joint staff, during the signing ceremony. 

"The rest of that time, they look to the private sector to find meaningful work that allows them to support themselves and their families and be great members of society," she said, adding that Guard members often have unique skill sets that translate to both the military and civilian sides. 

Connecting Guard members with employers who value those skills is one of the primary missions of the NGB’s office of employment support, and this agreement helps fulfill that mission, said Kett. 

Others agreed.

"This MOU is a step to help us accomplish that goal," said Meyerann.
EXHIBIT 99.3

|Contact: | Lorraine D. Miller, CFA            
|-------- | -----------------------------------
|         | Senior Vice President              
|         | Finance and External Communications
|         | 404.378.0491                       

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



WESTPOINT STEVENS 2004 FORM 10-K WILL NOT BE TIMELY FILED



WEST POINT, GEORGIA (March 16, 2005) -- WestPoint Stevens (OTCBB:  WSPTQ) (

Based upon discussions with representatives of its debtor-in-possession lenders, the Company anticipates that it will receive from such lenders a waiver concerning its financial reporting requirements.

WestPoint Stevens Inc. is the nation's premier home fashions consumer products company, with a wide range of bed linens, towels, blankets, comforters and accessories marketed under the well-known brand names GRAND PATRICIAN, PATRICIAN, MARTEX, ATELIER MARTEX, BABY MARTEX, UTICA, STEVENS, LADY PEPPERELL, SEDUCTION, VELLUX and CHATHAM -- all registered trademarks owned by WestPoint Stevens Inc. and its subsidiaries -- and under licensed brands includingCHARISMA, RALPH LAUREN HOME, DISNEY HOMEandGLYNDA TURLEY.WestPoint Stevens can be found on the World Wide Web at

Safe Harbor Statement: Except for historical information contained herein, certain matters set forth in this press release are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties may be attributable to important factors that include but are not limited to the following: Product margins may vary from those projected; Raw material prices may vary from those assumed; Additional reserves may be required for bad debts, returns, allowances, governmental compliance costs, or litigation; There may be changes in the performance of financial markets or fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; Unanticipated natural disasters could have a material impact upon results of operations; There may be changes in the general economic conditions that affect customer practices or consumer spending; Competition for retail and wholesale customers, pricing and transportation of products may vary from time to time due to seasonal variations or otherwise; Customer preferences for our products can be affected by competition, or general market demand for domestic or imported goods or the quantity, quality, price or delivery time of such goods; There could be an unanticipated loss of a material customer or a material license; The availability and price of raw materials could be affected by weather, disease, energy costs or other factors; The future results of operations may be adversely affected by

-END-



|507 West Tenth Street - Post Office Box 71 - West Point, Georgia 31833
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|www.westpointstevens.com
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ 

JANICE MARTIN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CITY OF TULSA; CHUCK 

JORDAN; CPL FRANCETIC; JOHN 

DOE, 

 Defendant-Appellees. 

No. 16-5146 

(D.C. No. 4:15-CV-00366-JED-PJC) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

When Ms. Martin sued, the federal rules of civil procedure required 

her to serve the defendants within 120 days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

 

* Oral argument would not be helpful in this appeal. As a result, we 

are deciding the appeal based on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except 

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 

But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 1, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

4(m) (2015).1

 The plaintiff didn’t. So, over thirteen months after Ms. 

Martin sued, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice for 

failure to timely serve the defendants. 

The plaintiff appeals, arguing that her underlying claim is valid. It 

may be, but the district court could not grant relief in the absence of 

service of process. 

When 120 days elapsed from the filing of the complaint, the federal 

rules required the district court to either order dismissal without prejudice 

or order service within a specific-time-period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) 

(2015). The district court complied, ordering service by July 22, 2016, and 

warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal without prejudice. 

Ms. Martin failed to take any action by July 22, 2016. So, over one month 

after the court’s deadline expired, the district court did what it had warned, 

dismissing the action without prejudice. This dismissal reflected a proper 

exercise of authority under the federal rules of civil procedure. Thus, we 

affirm. 

Entered for the Court 

 

 Robert E. Bacharach 

 Circuit Judge 

 

1

 Roughly five months after Ms. Martin filed the complaint, the service 

deadline was shortened to 90 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (eff. Dec. 1, 

2015)