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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the company's
consolidated financial statements for the thirty-six week period ended
January 4, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-04-1997
<CASH>                                          12,302
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,972
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,852
<INVENTORY>                                    178,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               317,676
<PP&E>                                         231,044
<DEPRECIATION>                                 107,959
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 611,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          274,992
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,981
<OTHER-SE>                                     169,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   611,346
<SALES>                                      2,300,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,300,925
<CGS>                                        2,059,283
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,059,283
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               171,492
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 66,720
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,703
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,017
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,017
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.85
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1111

LINDA J. BALDOCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusAPPALACHIAN PLUMBING HEAT & AIR COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a Virginia corporation, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-97-39-L) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linda J. Baldock, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Mitchell Coates, FRALIN, FEINMAN, COATES & KINNIER, P.C., Lynchburg, Virginia; John Leyburn Mosby, Jr., J. LEYBURN MOSBY, JR., P.C., Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Linda J. Baldock appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Baldock v. Appalachian Plumbing, Heat & Air Co. , No. CA-97-39-L (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 1998). 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
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4005

_____________________________
P ATRICE K ERR ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

— Or iginal Jurisdiction

.

January 14, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits.

R OWE , R AY , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion un der Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Patrice Kerr, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley Brooke Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         521,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,697,400
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,134,300)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,305,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,097,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,305,100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               378,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  120,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                98,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                110,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   110,900
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13368-13369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7005]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers


Columbia River System Operation Review, Selection of a System 
Operation Strategy (Record of Decision (ROD))

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability of Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: In 1990, the three Federal agencies responsible for management 
of the Federal Columbia River Power System; the Corps of Engineers, the 
Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration; began the 
System Operation Review (SOR) for the purpose of developing and 
implementing a coordinated system operating strategy for managing the 
multiple uses of the system while

[[Page 13369]]

meeting the biological needs of species protected under the Endangered 
Species Act. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 
selection of a system operation strategy preferred alternative is 
documented in the SOR Final Environmental Impact Statement, November 
1995. This Record of Decision documents the decision of the Corps of 
Engineers to implement existing and modified plans for reservoir 
regulation and project operation for the following Corps projects: 
Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and McNary; Oregon and Washington: 
Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, Lower Granite, and Chief 
Joseph; Washington: Dworshak and Albeni Falls, Idaho: and Libby, 
Montana. The Record of Decision was signed on February 20, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the record of decision and 
further information may be requested from: Division Engineer, US Army 
Engineer Division, North Pacific Division, 220 NW 8th Ave., Portland, 
Oregon 97209-3589, PO Box 2870, 97208-2870, Attention: Ray Jaren, 
Telephone (503) 326-5194 ((503) 808-3857 after March 21, 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the Record of Decision are 
available for inspection and review at the following Corps of Engineers 
offices:

Office, Chief of Engineers, 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 
20314-1000.
Portland District, Robert Duncan Plaza, 333 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 
97204-3495, (503) 326-5268.
Seattle District, 4735 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, WA 98134-2385, 
(206) 764-6578.
Walla Walla District, 201 North 3rd Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362-1876, 
(509) 527-7244.
Robert H. Griffin,
Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Division Engineer.
[FR Doc. 97-7005 Filed 3-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-AR-M
# C_2023083EN.01002301.xml

| 6.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — DN Solutions (PUMA)

(Case T-4/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PUMA - Earlier international figurative mark PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Detriment to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 83/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: DN Solutions Co. Ltd, formerly Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd (Seongsan-gu, Changwon-si, South Korea) (represented by: R. Böhm and C. Brecht, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 October 2021 (Case R 1677/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Puma SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Puma SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7414

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WALTER LOUIS INGRAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

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

(CR-92-116, CA-97-3512-JFM)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 7, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cheryl Johns Sturm, Westtown, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Andrea

L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

May 22, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered

on the docket sheet on May 27, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and

79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that

the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet that we take

as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson

v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Louis Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Ingram, Nos. CR-92-

116; CA-97-3512-JFM (D. Md. May 27, 1998).* 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.

DISMISSED
No. 12-85.

#### Wagenfeald et al. *v.*Gusman et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
exhibit_4-25.htm










Exhibit 4.25


 


SOLECO BUILDING RIGHT AGREEMENT


 




ENGLISH SUMMARY OF ITALIAN VERSION1


 






1. Preliminary Note


 


The building (superficie) right, regulated by article 952 of the Italian Civil Code, is particularly appropriate for the construction of photovoltaic plants, as it allows the grantee of the building right to be owner of the plant whereas the title of the land remains with the grantor.







For the construction and the maintenance of the photovoltaic plant (“PV Plant”) on the land (Municipality of Canaro (RO), sheet 9, parcels 115, 117 and 119; sheet 10, parcels 16, 153, 155 and 159) (the “Land”), on July 7, 2011 the company Soleco S.r.l. entered into a sale and purchase and building right agreement with Solemax S.r.l. (“Solemax”) and with the previous owners of the Land whereby the previous owners of the Land granted a 21-year building right to Soleco S.r.l. and transferred the ownership of the Land to Solemax. The agreement has been executed in Occhiobello (RO), authenticated by the Notary Mauro Coppola, Repertorio no. 75.174, Raccolta no. 14.467, registered in Rovigo and filed with the Conservatoria dei Registri Immobiliari on July 28, 2011.


 


2. Main content of the agreement


 



	
1. Execution date

	
July 7, 2011


	
2. Previous Owners

	
Messers. Vasco Grendene, Giovanni Polonio and Sergio Bianchi and Ms. Angelina Rondanin


	
3. Current Owner

	
Solemax


	
4. Portion of the land

	
Municipality of Canaro (RO), sheet 9, parcels 115, 117 and 119; sheet 10, parcels 16, 153, 155 and 159, size 11.57.87 hectares.


	
5. Duration

	
21 years (until June 30, 2032)


	
6. Consideration

	
As consideration for the 21-year building right, Soleco paid an amount of Euro 662,822.11. This consideration has been fully paid upon execution and acknowledgement of such payment is included in the deed.


	
7. Easements

	
An electric easement right is in place in favour of Enel on parcels 16 and 159.


	
8. Competent Court

	
Exclusive jurisdiction of the court of Rovigo.


















1 The original language version is on file with the Registrant and is available upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          22,820
<SECURITIES>                                     4,959
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (278)
<INVENTORY>                                     10,380
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,747
<PP&E>                                          25,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,859
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,728
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,859
<SALES>                                         26,086
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,086
<CGS>                                           14,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,534
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (50)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,076
<INCOME-TAX>                                       791
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,285
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,285
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          19,283
<SECURITIES>                                    36,016
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,910
<ALLOWANCES>                                       322
<INVENTORY>                                     22,357
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,153
<PP&E>                                          39,822
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,767
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,503
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,669
<SALES>                                        107,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,557
<CGS>                                           61,047
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 683
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,273
<INCOME-TAX>                                       230
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,043
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,043
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21


</TABLE>
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2022

Table 29. Average Sales Price of Coal by State and Underground Mining Method, 2022

(dollars per short ton)

Coal-Producing State Continuous

Conventional and

Other1 Longwall Total

Alabama 271.71 - 289.02 284.75

Colorado w - w 77.33

Illinois 32.72 - 38.27 w

Indiana 52.83 - - 52.83

Kentucky Total 73.30 59.14 - 73.19

 Kentucky (East) w 59.14 - w

 Kentucky (West) w - - w

Maryland w - - w

Montana w - w w

New Mexico - - w w

Ohio w - w w

Pennsylvania Total w w 76.33 89.43

 Pennsylvania (Anthracite) - w - w

 Pennsylvania (Bituminous) 135.20 - 76.33 w

Utah w - w w

Virginia w - w 220.91

West Virginia Total w w 83.12 121.73

 West Virginia (Northern) w - 83.12 85.27

 West Virginia (Southern) w w - 200.06

U.S. Total 107.70 122.73 87.38 96.47

- = No data reported.

w = Data withheld to avoid disclosure.

1 Mines that produce coal using shortwall, scoop loading, hand loading, or other methods.

Notes: An average sales price is calculated by dividing the total free on board (f.o.b) rail/barge value of the coal sold by the total coal sold. Excludes mines producing less than 25,000 short tons, which are not

required to provide data. Excludes silt, culm, refuse bank, slurry dam, and dredge operations. Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration Form EIA-7A, 'Annual Survey of Coal Production and Preparation.'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1491~I3-PI 

### """""""'''-'
14CFRPan 39 Federal Aviation Administration



# /lh3 (Docket No. FAA_2010-u•u; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-233-ADI RIN212~AA64 Airwortbioess Directives; 328 Support Services GmbH {Type Certificate Previously -. ('i~

S -A

### -"to Heldby AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; DOmlerLuftfahrt GmbH '.-: Model 328-100 and -300 Airplanes AGENCY: FederaJ Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. 

# -,~ ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NP&"\1). 

## C

_ &1rr- 

### ~" SUMMARY: Wepropose to adopt anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe products 

# 11/1-0/10 listed above lhat would supersede an existing AD. This proposeu AD results from mandatory co'ntinuing airworthinl information (MeAT) originated by anaviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an avialion pmducl. The MCAI deseribes lh+nsarc condition ." Dunng a routme mspectlo~.cracks have been found all an aeroplane at the lower wing panel rear trail~ngedge inboard of Oaplever arm 1 (rib 5). A subsequent inspection of the other aeroplanes in that operator's fleet revealed. several more aerdplanes •••• 'ilh cracks atthe same locatiOIl. This condition, ifnot corrected! could lead to struclural failure of lhe affected wing panel, possibly resulting in the wing separating from the airplane with consequent loss of control. 

### W'/ 

# o

• • • • 

## • • • 

# ~.".- The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe conditio ""'1 described in the MeAl.

FAA Form 1Jr;o.l4.1 (6-89) OfFICIAl ALE COPY
No. 11-10569.

#### Holland *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# / Jerry Bentley 99 Lee Road 518 Phenix City, AL 36870-6827 March 7, 201 0
The Honorable Ray LaHood Secretary ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington,DC20590
Re: Retirees Support Delta's HanedaApplication
Dear Secretary LaHood: t
..",J Delta Air Lines has submitted an application to provide new nonstop service from the U.S. to Tokyo's Haneda airport. As aretired employee ofDelta, I enthusiastically supportthis application. Underthe new aviation agreement with Japan, Haneda will be reopened toU.S. carriers for the final time since 1976. Because ofits convenient location nearcentral Tokyo, Haneda is the.preferred airport for business travelers. Delta employees, and many ofits retirees, have worked for many years to build Delta's business in Japan, and no U.s. airline has invested more in Tokyo than Delta. Delta has a strong record ofcompetitive trans-Pacific service. Blltthe reopening ofHanedawill putthat investmentand Deltajobs at risk ifthey are unable to compete. Delta's major competitors, the Star and oneworld Alliances, have Japanese partners that dominate service at Haneda. Delta, which does not have a Japanese partner, would be at a serious disadvantage unless it is given the opportunity to compete at Haneda. IfDelta is provided with the Haneda slots they need, all three ofthe major airline alliances

- SkyTeam, Star and oneworld

- will be able to compete on a level playing field. That new competition would provide tremendous benefits for Delta's customers and Delta's employees. I urge youtoapproye Delta's application and proyi<iethe frequencies proposed to serve Banedafrom Seattle,Detroit, Los Angeles and Honolulu.
... . .... Sincerely,

Jerry F. Bentley 334-297:8771