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

<PAGE>
 
                       
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000819253     
<NAME> First Capital Insured Real Estate Limited Partnership    
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                   3,798,700
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               78,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         3,877,300
<PP&E>                                  29,505,800
<DEPRECIATION>                           5,134,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          29,273,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,149,300
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                              28,056,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            29,273,500
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         3,599,300
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,405,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           153,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          1,355,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      1,355,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                             1,355,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.95
        
                                  




</TABLE>
H. Res. 1155 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 29, 2020. 

Whereas the United States is founded on the principle that 

our Government derives its power from the consent of the 

governed and that the people have the right to change 

their elected leaders through elections; 

Whereas our domestic tranquility, national security, general 

welfare, and civil liberties depend upon the peaceful and 

orderly transfer of power; and 

Whereas any disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power could produce results detrimental to the 

safety and well-being of the United States and its people: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) reaffirms its commitment to the orderly and 

peaceful transfer of power called for in the Constitution 

of the United States; and 
2 

•HRES 1155 EH 

(2) intends that there should be no disruptions by 

the President or any person in power to overturn the will 

of the people of the United States. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 12-5340.

#### Cleveland et ux. *v.*Oklahoma.

Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C.      SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| Date:                March 24,                2006 | By:    | /s/   James                F.                Wirth |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                               |   | Name:                James F.                Wirth                |
|                                               |   | Title:                Chief Executive                Officer      |
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2022

Table 22. Underground Coal Mining Productivity by State and Mining Method, 2022

(short tons produced per employee hour)

Coal-Producing State, Region1 and Mine Type Continuous

Conventional and

Other2 Longwall Total

Alabama 1.79 - 2.17 1.98

Colorado 3.20 - 5.48 4.72

Illinois 7.05 - 10.03 7.93

Indiana 4.25 - - 3.99

Kentucky Total 2.99 0.13 - 2.63

 Kentucky (East) 1.54 0.19 - 1.31

 Kentucky (West) 4.47 - - 4.13

Maryland 1.59 - - 1.14

Montana 15.31 - 15.31 15.31

New Mexico - - 4.43 4.43

Ohio 3.68 - 2.83 3.08

Pennsylvania Total 3.40 0.9 6.49 5.10

 Pennsylvania (Anthracite) - 0.52 - 0.52

 Pennsylvania (Bituminous) 3.40 - 6.49 5.14

Utah 3.17 - 4.40 3.72

Virginia 2.16 - 3.15 2.17

West Virginia Total 2.04 0.10 4.99 2.91

 West Virginia (Northern) 3.14 - 4.99 4.58

 West Virginia (Southern) 1.90 0.11 - 1.63

Appalachia Total 2.11 0.9 4.71 2.92

 Appalachia Central 1.85 0.11 3.15 1.65

 Appalachia Northern 3.25 0.4 5.46 4.69

 Appalachia Southern 1.79 - 2.17 1.98

Interior Region Total 5.05 - 10.03 5.56

 Illinois Basin 5.05 - 10.03 5.56

Western Region Total 3.49 - 6.09 5.14

 Uinta Basin 3.41 - 4.87 4.30

 Other Western 3.74 - 10.45 8.03

East of Mississippi River 2.96 0.8 5.27 3.49

West of Mississippi River 3.49 - 6.09 5.14

U.S. Total 2.98 0.8 5.41 3.63

- = No data reported.

1 For a definition of coal producing regions, see the Glossary.

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

Notes: For each State, stand alone preparation plant hours are distributed across mining methods by the proportion of underground hours for all stand alone mines. Productivity is calculated by dividing total

coal production by the total direct labor hours worked by all employees engaged in production, preparation, processing, development, maintenance, repair shop, or yard work at mining operations, including

office workers. Excludes mines producing less than 25,000 short tons of coal and preparation plants with less than 5,000 employee hours during the year, which are not required to provide data.

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration Form EIA-7A, 'Annual Survey of Coal Production and Preparation,' and U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration Form 7000-2, 'Quarterly

Mine Employment and Coal Production Report.'
# 1994
No. 12-5133.

#### Malcomson *v.*Topps, Inc.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 12-5051.

#### Thames *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
NO. 07-10-00092-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL A AUGUST 12, 2010

IN THE INTEREST OF C .G.H. AND K.J.H., CHILDREN

FROM THE 286TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOCKLEY COUNTY; NO. 05-04-19953; HONORABL E PAT PHELAN, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Christopher Hafer, perfected this appeal from the tria l court’s order in suit to modify parent-child relationship. T he clerk’s record was f iled on April 1, 2010, with a supplemental clerk’s record filed on J une 9. The reporter’s record was filed on May 12, with a supplemental reporter’s record filed on May 14. Hafer requested an extension of time to file his brief, which wa s granted, and his brief was due to be filed on July 12. Hafer did not file his brief nor requ est an extension of time to file his brief by July 12. By letter dated July 22, the Clerk of this Court notified Ha fer that his brief was past due and that failure to f ile his brief with this Court on or before August 2, could result in dismissal of his appeal pursuant to Rules 38.8(a ) and 42.3 of the Texas Rules2 of Appellate Procedure. Hafer has neither filed his brief no r responded to this Court’s July 22 correspondence.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for wa nt of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court requiring a response or other action in a specified time. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
No. 12-5366.

#### Griffin *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
AFS-13-330-E

May 16, 2016

 Exemption No. 10768

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0356

Ms. Emma Dunne

Parent of Tessa Dunne

78 Trimleston, 

Balbriggan, Co Dublin

Dear Ms. Dunne:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received April 15, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Tessa Dunne for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Tessa to exceed the 

specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by 

AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States 

(U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Tessa.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using 

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security 

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the 
2

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by 

persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Tessa Dunne exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b). In 

addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Tessa is 

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary 

to allow Tessa to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Tessa’s parents or 

a caregiver accompanying her. Tessa Dunne may only occupy a passenger seat with no 

passenger seated behind her. In addition, Tessa’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this 

exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours 

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovick

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards

 Service

Enclosure
exhibit_4-4.htm










EXHIBIT 4.4







Amendment to EZchip Semiconductor Ltd. 2007 U.S. Equity Incentive Plan, dated September 10, 2013


 


Effective as of September 10, 2013, the EZchip Semiconductor Ltd. 2007 U.S. Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows (the “Amendment”):








	
  

	
4.

	
Section 3(a) of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:












“SHARE RESERVE. Subject to the provisions of Section 8(a) relating to adjustments upon changes in share capital, the aggregate number of Ordinary Shares of the Company that may be issued pursuant to Awards upon the Effective Date shall be one million two hundred thousand (1,200,000) shares.  Any Ordinary Shares which remain unissued and which are not subject to outstanding Awards at the termination of the Plan shall cease to be reserved for the purpose of the Plan, but until termination of the Plan the Company shall at all times reserve sufficient number of Ordinary Shares to meet the requirements of the Plan.  Should any Award for any reason expire or be canceled prior to its exercise or relinquishment in full, the Ordinary Shares therefore subject to such Award may again be subjected to an Award under the Plan or under the Company's other equity incentive plans.  Any Shares subject to Awards shall be counted against the numerical limits of this Section 3(a) as one Ordinary Share for every Ordinary Share subject thereto.”








	
  

	
5.

	
Except as explicitly amended by this Amendment, all other terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
No. 11-10754.

#### Carter *v.*Kentucky.

Sup. Ct. Ky. Certio-rari denied.
From: Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Heidi King" <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: "Lydia Wegman" <wegman.lydia@epa.gov>, "Karen Martin" <martin.karen@epa.gov>, "Deirdre 

Murphy" <Murphy.Deirdre@epamail.epa.gov>

Date: 12/15/2010 11:40 PM

Subject: Fw: CO NAAQS Review - OMB briefing - slide package

Heidi, here's the package we'll use for tomorrow's briefing. 

RR

 ----- Original Message -----

 From: Deirdre Murphy

 Sent: 12/15/2010 03:33 PM EST

 To: Rosalina Rodriguez

 Cc: Karen Martin; Lydia Wegman; Nealson Watkins; Lewis Weinstock; James 

Hemby

 Subject: CO NAAQS Review - OMB briefing - slide package

Hi Rosalina,

For tomorrow's OMB meeting, Nealson and I have drawn from the Administrator briefing slides, updating 

as appropriate, and Karen has reviewed the final set.

Please let us know if you need anything additional on this.

Thanks

Deirdre
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 31, 2015

NO. 03-15-00699-CR

Ashley Roxanne Henderson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order of deferred adjudication signed by the district court. Appellant

has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court grants the motion, allows 

appellant to withdraw her notice of appeal, and dismisses the appeal. Because appellant is 

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
|  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                           |  Contact: David A. Garrison |
|-------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|  Website:  http://www.arthrt.com  |    (978)345-5000  |

| http://www.arthrt.com            | http://www.micronproducts.com   |
|----------------------------------|---------------------------------|
| http://www.newenglandmolders.com | http://www.micronintegrated.com |
| http://www.leominstertool.com    |                            |

----
# C_2023155EN.01005202.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/52

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Novasol v ECHA

(Case T-70/22) (1)

(REACH - Fee payable for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Request for evidence demonstrating the status of a SME - Refusal to provide certain information - Decision ordering the recovery of the uncollected amount of the total fees payable and imposing an administrative charge - Concept of ‘related undertaking’ - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 155/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Novasol (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: C. Alter and G. Bouton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: F. Becker, S. Mahoney and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by A. Guillerme, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of decision SME D (2021) 8531-DC of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 25 November 2021, finding that the applicant had failed to adduce the evidence necessary to benefit from the fee reduction provided for medium-sized enterprises and therefore requesting that the applicant pay the difference between the amount of the fee that it had already paid and the amount of the fee applicable to large enterprises, together with an administrative fee in the amount of EUR 19 900.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Novasol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Novasol to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132570 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132570 COA: 271300 Jackson CC: 99-094247-FC PRENTICE DEVELL WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

d0416 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 24, 2007

Clerk
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Southwestern Water Exploration Co.
("SWWE") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2001 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Steven B. Misner, chairman and chief executive officer of SWWE, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of SWWE.


/s/ Steven B. Misner
-------------------------------
Steven B. Misner
Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer

November 12, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 14412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7615]


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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission

March 17, 1997.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been 
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Minor License.
    b. Project No.: P-11289-002.
    c. Date Filed: February 27, 1997.
    d. Applicant: Village of Potsdam, New York.
    e. Name of Project: West Dam Hydro Project.
    f. Location: On the Raquette River in St. Lawrence County, New 
York.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: 

Frank O. Christie, Christie Engineering, 8 East Main St., Malone, NY 
12953.
Hon. Ruth Garner, Mayor, Village of Potsdam, P.O. Box 5168, Potsdam, NY 
13676.

    i. FERC Contact: Bill Guey-Lee (202) 219-2808.
    j. Comment Date: 60 days from the filing date in paragraph c.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would utilize the 
water in excess of that used by the Village of Potsdam's existing 
exempted Project No. 2869. Project No. 2869 consists of the East Dam 
and West Dam separated by an island, a 300-acre reservoir, and an 800-
kW powerhouse at the East Dam. The proposed Project No. 11289 would 
consist of an intake and powerhouse at the West Dam with a capacity of 
700 kW.
    l. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the New 
York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by section 
106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36, CFR, at 800.4.
    m. Pursuant to Sec. 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's 
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes 
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to 
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the 
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person 
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 
days from the filing date and serve a copy of the request on the 
applicant.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-7615 Filed 3-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1741-1742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-762]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 137-002-CA]


Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice Granting Extension of 
Time

January 8, 1997.
    On December 26, 1996, the Notice of Availability of Draft 
Environmental Assessment (NDEA) for the Mokelumne River Project No. 137 
was issued in the Federal Register (Vol. 61 No. 249 FR 68033). The NDEA 
requested that any comments should be filed within 30 days from the 
date of this notice. The

[[Page 1742]]

Commission issued the NDEA on December 19, 1996, comments are due by 
January 21, 1997.
    In a letter dated January 2, 1997, Friends of the River, American 
Whitewater Affiliation, California Outdoors, and Foothill Conservancy 
(Intervenors) requested an extension of time to comment on the DEA 
until March 19, 1997. Intervenors state that they received copies of 
the DEA between December 31, 1996 and January 2, 1997, providing just 
over two weeks to file comments.
    Further, Intervenors state that additional time is needed to review 
the DEA because: (1) many complex issues were raised in its comments on 
the Notice Ready for Environmental Analysis; (2) the proceeding began 
24 years ago and the pertinent record is voluminous; and (3) recent 
developments regarding the operations of other facilities on the 
Mokelumne River, which may not be fully considered in the DEA, but 
which need to be integrated into the cumulative impact analysis.
    Because the pertinent record is voluminous, and because the DEA 
wasn't received until the end of December 1996 or the beginning of 
January 1997, the date to file comments is extended until February 21, 
1997. If you have any questions about this matter, please call Tom Dean 
at (202) 219-2778.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-762 Filed 1-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M