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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
consolidated financial statements of Ceramics Process Systems Corporation
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q for
period ending July 1, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Jul-01-2000
<CASH>                                         1250460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   526680
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     529072
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2344288
<PP&E>                                         1061137
<DEPRECIATION>                                  753094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3405425
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           430646
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      12287073
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3405425
<SALES>                                        1346076
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1346076
<CGS>                                          1036608
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1303198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  69800
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              69800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     69800
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.4

 

	
Number
   B-
    	
Incorporated   Under the Laws of the State of Alaska
    	
Shares
   -0-
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Cusip No.
    


 

GCI LIBERTY, INC.

 

Class B Common Stock, no par value

 

Specimen Certificate

 

This Certifies that [          ]  is the owner of [          ] FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF CLASS B COMMON STOCK, NO PAR VALUE, OF GCI LIBERTY, INC. (hereinafter called the “Corporation”) transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.

 

Witness, the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers.

 

Dated:

 

GCI Liberty, Inc.

[Corporate Seal]

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
President
    	
Secretary
    


 

The Corporation is authorized to issue shares of more than one class of common stock and also more than one series of a class of preferred stock.  The Corporation will furnish to a shareholder upon request and without charge, a full or summary statement of the designations, preferences, limitations, and relative rights of the shares of each class authorized to be issued and the variations in the relative rights and preferences between the shares of each series so far as they have been fixed and determined and the authority of the board of directors of the Corporation to fix and determine the relative rights and preferences of subsequent series.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

May 16, 2008

Ms. Patricia Medrano

Assistant City Attorney

1500 Marilla St., Ste. 7DN

Dallas, TX 75201

Mr. Mark A. Ticer

Law Office of Mark Ticer

3300 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 700

Dallas, TX 75219

RE:Case Number:  07-0469

Court of Appeals Number:  05-06-01652-CV

Trial Court Number:  05-07283-B

Style:CITY OF DALLAS

v.

KENNETH REED

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0469Page 1**
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Richard Jamar SEARS, Jr., Petitioner

No. 572 MAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 4, 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1112 Prepped by Ryan Dugan



## Document

Number: 

# 11 ) ll-B-2 h Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 2

Printed 4/16/2008 9:12:06

AM Sheet 11 of 97P. 2 

# ARCONN E NATIONA L LABORATOR Y*'*"* 970 0 SOUTI H CAS S AVENUE , ARQONNE , IfliNOi s 6042 9 TElEpk>N E 512/972 - 843 0 Apri l 4 , 198 5

Dr . Gerhar d Winnek e Abteilun g fur Psychophosiologi e Medizinische s Institut e fur Umwel t Hygien e nan de r Universita t Dusseldor f Gurlittstrass e 5 3 400 0 Dusseldorf , Federa l Republi c o f German y Dea r Dr . Winneke : O n behal f o f the U.S . EPA , I woul d lik e t o than k yo u fo r you r willing
nes s t o participat e i n the lea d ris k assessmen t study . You r judgment s abou t possibl e effect s o f lea d on the IQso f childre n ar e criticall yneeded . Tom Wallste n an

d I ar e ver

ymuc h looking forward t o meeting wit h yo u on Ma y6 an d Ma y8 t o obtai n you r probabilisti c judgments . Enclose d i s a cop

yo f our I Q protoco l tha t wil l be th e basi s o f ou r intervie wwit h you . I t woul d b e good i f yo u coul d revie wi t prio r t o our firs t meeting . Finally , coul d yo u hel p u s wit h two mor e importan t matters ? W e wil l wan t t o performsom e calculation s wit h you r judgment s fro mth e firs t da

yan d sho wyo u the result s on the secon d day . W e wil l bring a flopp ydis k contain
in g compute r program s tha t ru n o n a n IB M (o r compatible ) persona l computer . D o yo u hav e acces s t o suc h a compute r a t your Institute ? I f so , woul d i t b e possibl e fo r u s t o us e i t fo r a shor t while ? Thi s i s no t critica l bu t i t woul d b e ver yhelpful . Also , ca n yo u recommen

d a reasonabl yprice d hote l nea r you ? Sincerely ,
Ronal d G . Wftitfield Energ yan d Environmenta l System s Divisio n RGW:b f Enclosur e

U.S
. DEPARTMEN Tof ENERq yTH E UNivERSiT yo f CI-CAQ O
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          57,275
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,275
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 513,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           194
<OTHER-SE>                                     512,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   513,574
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,914)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (432)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,482)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,482)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1

MEMORANDUM

Date: June 15, 2015

Subject: Environmental and Energy Impacts for Wool Fiberglass Man ufacturing NESHAP –

Final RTR Amendments 40 CFR 63, Subpart NNN

From: Susan Fairchild

OAQPS/SPPD/NRG (D243-02) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

To: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042

I. Introduction

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the estimate d environmental and energy impacts associated with the final residual risk and technology revi ew (RTR) amendments to 40 CFR 63, Subpart NNN - Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing. Secondary impacts i nclude the solid waste, water, wastewater generated and the electricity required to operate air pol lution control devices, as well as, the resultant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from controls or work prac tices required by the NESHAP.

II. Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Impacts

The EPA estimates that two gas-fired glass-melting furna ces located at two wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities do not meet the final chromium compound emission limit (2.5E-04 lb/ton of glass pulled) for Subpart NNN. Based on the compliance co st analyses, the most cost-effective approach to comply with the emission limit would be to reduce the operational life of the two furnaces (i.e., replace or rebuild them earlier than they would usuall y). Therefore, there are no water or wastewater impacts using this approach.

Assuming that same approach to reducing emissions of chromi um compounds would involve rebuilding the glass-melting furnaces earlier than usual (e.g., afte r 7 years instead of 10 years), we estimated the solid waste impacts. The average cost of disposing of a ll the old refractories in a furnace rebuild is estimated to be 200 tons x $300/ton = $60,000. 1 Using the 7-year operational furnace life scenario, the annualized solid waste cost impact would be $2,600 for each of the two furnaces. The technical

literature indicate that manufacturers of chromium re fractories accept the spent chromium refractories from rebuilt furnaces and recycle the materials into the manufacture of new refractories. 2 However, we do not have cost data relevant to chromium refractory rec ycling, and have not included it here. As a result, these costs are overestimated, and are conser vative.

1 Letter from A. Crane, NAIMA to D. Reeves, RTI, date d September 26, 2014.

2 Glass Global Community, 2015 (online website news a nd advertisement). Harbison Walker International

. North American Refractories Company. Cherrington Corporate Center, 400 Fairway Drive, 15108 Moon Township, PA.2

III. Energy Impacts and GHG Emissions from Electricity Usage

Since the expected compliance approach does not involve a ny type of additional add-on control device, there are no additional electricity costs or associated GHG emissions.
#### Seshadri RAJU, M.D., P.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Erin MURPHY, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-60550 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 26, 2018

William Stacy Kellum, III, Esq., Kellum Law Firm, P.C., Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Cecil Maison Heidelberg, Esq., Watson Heidelberg Jones, P.L.L.C., Flowood, MS, for Defendant-Appellee

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. '

PER CURIAM: *

Two doctors had a business relationship and an agreement that contemplated arbitration to resolve disputes. When they disagreed, Seshadri Raju sued Erin Murphy instead of invoking arbitration. The state suit was removed to federal court, whereupon Murphy counterclaimed. Only then did Raju invoke the arbitration clause. The district court denied Raju’s motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. *319Raju brings this interlocutory appeal under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a).

The district court issued a succinct but more than adequate explanation of its reasons for denying arbitration. It noted that “[t]he right to arbitrate ... is subject to waiver” (quoting *Nicholas KBR, Inc.,*565 F.3d 904, 907 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted)). The court properly noted that “[wjaiver will be found when the party seeking arbitration substantially invokes the judicial process to the detriment or prejudice of the other party” (quoting *Miller Brewing Co. v. Fort Worth Distrib. Co.,*781 F.2d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 1986)),

The district court accurately found- that Raju had “substantially invoke[d] the judicial process.” As the court said, “[t]he record suggests that Dr. Raju was initially uninterested in resolving this dispute through arbitration” and decided on that avenue only when the case landed in federal court through removal. As the court opined, “Dr. Raju clearly prefers litigation over arbitration, apparently just not in this Court.”

Murphy still must show prejudice to establish waiver, for, as the district court observed, “[invocation of the Judicial process, alone, is insufficient to support waiver of arbitration.” The court correctly found prejudice from Murphy’s being required to answer the complaint, to file a counterclaim, to consult with two law firms, and to gear her legal strategy to court proceedings instead of arbitration. The court pointed out that Murphy was also prejudiced by the public nature of the lawsuit, whereas arbitration would have been private and confidential, so Murphy was hurt “by the public filing of the highly charged allegations accusing her of tor-tious and even criminal conduct.”

The district court handled this matter ably, fairly, and expeditiously. There was prejudice and waiver. The order denying the. motion to stay and to compel arbitration is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 251

To commemorate and acknowledge the dedication and sacrifice made by

the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law

enforcement officers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 25, 1996

Mr. KEMPTHORNE (for himself, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. BIDEN, Mr.

BINGAMAN, Mr. BOND, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BROWN, Mr. BRYAN, Mr.

BURNS, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COVERDELL,

Mr. CRAIG, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. DOLE, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr.

FEINGOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FORD, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GORTON, Mr.

GRAMM, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERRY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MCCAIN, Ms.

MIKULSKI, Ms. MOSLEY-BRAUN, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr.

NICKLES, Mr. PELL, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBB, Mr. ROTH, Mr. SARBANES,

Mr. SIMON, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr.

THURMOND, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. WELLSTONE) submitted the following

resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To commemorate the 1996 National Peace Officers Memorial

Day.

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of this country is preserved and enhanced as a direct result of the vigilance

and dedication of law enforcement personnel;
2

SRES 251 ATS

Whereas more than 500,000 men and women, at great risk

to their personal safety, presently serve their fellow citizens in their capacity as guardians of the peace;

Whereas peace officers are the front line in preserving our

childrens’ right to receive an education in a crime-free

environment that is all too often threatened by the insidious fear caused by violence in schools;

Whereas 162 peace officers lost their lives in the performance

of their duty in 1995, and a total of 13,575 men and

women have now made that supreme sacrifice;

Whereas every year 1 in 9 officers is assaulted, 1 in 25 is

injured, and 1 in 4,000 is killed in the line of duty;

Whereas, on May 15, 1996, more than 15,000 peace officers

are expected to gather in our nation’s Capital to join with

the families of their recently fallen comrades to honor

them and all others before them: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate of the United States of America

2 in Congress assembled, That May 15, 1996, is hereby des3 ignated as ‘‘National Peace Officers Memorial Day’’ for

4 the purpose of recognizing all peace officers slain in the

5 line of duty. The President is authorized and requested

6 to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the

7 United States to observe this day with the appropriate

8 ceremonies and respect.

Æ
IA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 100

Commending the personnel who served in the United States Navy Asiatic

Fleet, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 6, 1997

Mr. JONES introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on National Security

JOINT RESOLUTION

Commending the personnel who served in the United States

Navy Asiatic Fleet, and for other purposes.

Whereas the United States established the Asiatic Fleet of

the Navy in 1910 to protect American nationals, policies,

and possessions in the Far East;

Whereas the sailors and Marines of the Asiatic Fleet ensured

the safety of United States citizens and foreign nationals,

and provided humanitarian assistance in that region during the Chinese civil war, the Yangtze Flood of 1931, and

the outbreak of Sino-Japanese hostilities;

Whereas in 1940, due to deteriorating political relations and

increasing tensions between the United States and

Japan, a reinforced Asiatic Fleet began concentrating on

the defense of the Philippines and engaged in extensive
2

•HJ 100 IH

training to ensure maximum operational readiness for

any eventuality;

Whereas following the declaration of war against Japan, the

warships, submarines, and aircraft of the Asiatic Fleet

singly or in task forces courageously fought many naval

battles against a superior Japanese armada;

Whereas the Asiatic Fleet directly suffered the loss of 22

ships, 1,826 men killed or missing in action, and 518

men captured and imprisoned under the worst of conditions with many of them dying while held as prisoners of

war; and

Whereas supporters of the personnel who served in the Asiatic Fleet are attempting to establish March 1, 1998, as

‘‘United States Navy Asiatic Fleet Memorial Day’’: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL COMMENDATION.

4 The Congress—

5 (1) commends the personnel who served in the

6 Asiatic Fleet of the United States Navy between

7 1910 and 1942; and

8 (2) honors those who gave their lives in the line

9 of duty while serving in the Asiatic Fleet.

10 SEC. 2. CELEBRATORY ACTIVITIES.

11 (a) EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT.—The Congress sup12 ports the goals of United States Navy Asiatic Fleet Memo13 rial Day.
3

•HJ 100 IH

1 (b) PROCLAMATION.—The President is authorized

2 and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the

3 people of the United States to honor the United States

4 Navy Asiatic Fleet with appropriate programs, cere5 monies, and activities.

Æ
No. 11-9698.

#### Whitley *v.*Haas, Acting Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,841
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  165,845
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         112,090
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,284
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 292,103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        199,636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,012
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,009)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   292,103
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,012
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,193
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,098
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,690
<INCOME-TAX>                                       673
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,017
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          236
<NET-INCOME>                                       781
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 16502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06165]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: March 23, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
March 8, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 737 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2022-45, CP2022-
51.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2022-06165 Filed 3-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P