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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

Financial Data Schedule

This  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from
the  Statement  of  Financial  Condition  for  Mineral  Mountain  Mining &
Milling  Company at  June  30, 1999,  the  Statements  of  Income for  the
three  month  period  ended  June  30,  1999,  and  is  qualified  in  its
entirety  by  reference  to  such  financial  statements.


</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                          15,773
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                15,773
<PP&E>                                                          53,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  69,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            2,063
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                       493,880
<OTHER-SE>                                                    (426,362)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    69,581
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                   235
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   707
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (472)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (472)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (472)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Com. v. Bonaparte

08/30/2016

89 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 141 A.3d 595
No. 12-7218.

#### Pickens *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
AAM-12-204-E March 23, 2012

Exemption No. 10486 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0103

Mr. Jason Snyder Inland Helicopters

5505 East Rutter Avenue Spokane, WA 99212

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated January 20, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Inland Helicopters for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of FederalRegulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Inland Helicopters to cover its safetysensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation.

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 Inland Helicopters.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

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

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 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 Inland Helicopters an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Inland Helicopters to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Inland Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of the Inland Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on February 28, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
No. 12-7533.

#### Harrison *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 6 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 6

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States waiving 
  the application of the first article of amendment to the political 
speech of corporations and other business organizations with respect to 
   the disbursement of funds in connection with public elections and 
   granting Congress and the States the power to establish limits on 
     contributions and expenditures in elections for public office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2011

    Ms. Kaptur introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States waiving 
  the application of the first article of amendment to the political 
speech of corporations and other business organizations with respect to 
   the disbursement of funds in connection with public elections and 
   granting Congress and the States the power to establish limits on 
     contributions and expenditures in elections for public office.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The first article of amendment does not apply to the 
political speech of any corporation, partnership, business trust, 
association, or other business organization with respect to the making 
of contributions, expenditures, or other disbursements of funds in 
connection with public elections.
    ``Section 2. Congress shall have power to set limits on the amount 
of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of 
expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a 
candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal 
office.
    ``Section 3. A State shall have power to set limits on the amount 
of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of 
expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a 
candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, State or 
local office.
    ``Section 4. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce 
this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Charles O. Dunn, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mississippi Chemical Corporation (the "Registrant"), hereby certify that:

          1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended December 31, 2003;

          2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

          3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

          4.  The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the Registrant and have:

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

          5.  The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board of directors:

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting. 

February 17, 2004
/s/ Charles O. Dunn 
Charles O. Dunn 
President and Chief Executive Officer** **
SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT
                                       FOR
                            STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT


WHEREAS:

(1) Guilian li (ID:110103196312121002),  and Ziyang Zong (ID:132429197110271811)
(the  "Purchaser") and Kiwa Bio-Tech  Products Group Corporation (the "Company")
entered into the Stock  Purchase  Agreement  (the  "Agreement")  as of March 10,
2006, pursuant to which the Purchasers shall deliver to the Company 30% of total
Purchase  Price of  RMB6,000,000  (approximately  $750,000)  in 10 days from the
effective date of this  Agreement,  and the balance shall be paid to the Company
in 20 days from the effective date of this Agreement,  and immediately upon full
payment, the Company shall deliver to the Purchasers certificates evidencing the
Shares issued in the name of the Purchasers.

(2) The Agreement  was amended by  Supplementary  Agreement  for Stock  Purchase
Agreement  dated April 13, 2006,  pursuant to which the settlement  date for the
outstanding balance was extended to April 30, 2006, and

(3) As of May 12,  2006,  the  Purchasers  actually  delivered  part of purchase
price,  amounted to $400,000 in total, and the balance is still outstanding,  it
is agreed to sign this supplementary agreement to confirm the term as follows:



The Purchasers agree to settle the balance of purchase price under the Agreement
not later than May 31, 2006,  and the Company  agrees such  amendment of payment
term.

All other terms of the Agreement are  enforceable for both of the Purchasers and
the Company.



PURCHASERS:

BY: Guilian li and Ziyang Zong
    ---------------------------------
Title:



The Company:

BY: Wei Li
    ---------------------------------
Title: Chairman and CEO



May 12, 2006
#### Roslyn Teachers Assn., Matter of, v New York State Health Ins. Plan

3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1332

denied
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0801 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-106-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
No. 12-7383.

#### Allard *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|U.S. Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|U.S. Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 182,424 | 157,050
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 157,806 | 152,974 | 143,177 | 142,816 | 151,386 | 146,450 | 135,070 |         |         |        
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 129,119 | 124,552 | 121,821 | 123,124 | 122,502 | 120,190 | 119,967 | 119,191 | 119,395 | 117,914
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 118,331 | 117,750 | 117,609 |         |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-7695.

#### Lewis *v.*District of Columbia et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7834.

#### Thomas v. Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

1 

### Study Report

Title: Summary of Existing { } Type B Aggregation State

Data



### Report Date: October 30, 2014



### File Reference:

Principal Investigator(s): {

}

Sponsor: { }

EPA Reference: TS -ZF02NTCONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

2 

### Study Report

Summary of Existing { } Type B Aggregation State

Data

1) Introduction:

In connection with product research and development activities, the Sponsor routinely

characterizes particulates present in its { } (Test

Solutions). {

} made with the

Test Solutions.



### 2) Purpose & Scope:

This study provides characterization data on the aggregation state of the Sponsor’s Test

Substance both when in normal liquid suspensions (Test Solution) and in condensed phase.

This summary is to be used to inform chemical identification processes{

, }

.



### 3) Administrative Organization:

This report was prepared by principal investigator, { } , based upon

measurements carried out in the Sponsor’s { } facility. The underlying analyses

were performed by { } or staff working under his direction.



### 4) Test Substance:

The study was conducted on the TS -ZF02NT new chemical substance (Test Substance), after

processing as described in TS -ZF02NT, forming stable aqueous suspensions of the Test

Substance (Test Solutions). {

.}



### 5) Principle and Study Design:

The {

. }

{

}CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

3 {

}

6) 

### Sample Handling and Preparation:

i) Solution Phase Characterization: Samples are prepared and analyzed in accordance with

the Sponsor’s standard operating procedure for measuring the shake stability of the Test

Substance, { } are included here in A ppendix I

.

ii) {

}



### 7) Study Results:

The Test Solution Exhibit 1 used for this study ha d the following solution metrics:

 pH: { }

 { }

 Optical Density (OD): { }

 { }

Test Solution Exhibit 1 has {

} are typical of the Sponsor’s stable colloidal

Solutions. {

.}CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

4 {

}CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

5CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

6CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

I-1 Appendix I

Standard operating procedure { }CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

I-2 {

}CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

I-3 }CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

I-4CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

I-5CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

I-6CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

I-7CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

I-8 Appendix II

Standard Operating Procedure {II -2II -3II -4III -1 Appendix III

Standard Operating Procedure { }

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIII -2III -3III -4III -5III -6
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

KENNETH I. BAILYNSON
, Appellant,

v.

KERRI LYNN MERRICK
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 1271

[ March 1, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Dina A. Keever

- Agrama , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502019DR006913XXXXNB

.

Craig A. Boudreau of Law Office of Craig A. Boudreau, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We affirm the circuit court’s order dismissing the father’s amended supplemental petition for modification of the final paternity judgment. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the father setting a hearing before the circuit court on his pending motion for contempt. We take no position

on whether that motion has merit.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.