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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains third quarter summary financial information extracted
from Mississippi Chemical Corporation fiscal 1998 third quarter Form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000066895
<NAME> MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,951
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,934
<INVENTORY>                                     79,222
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               208,305
<PP&E>                                         769,713
<DEPRECIATION>                               (327,306)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 922,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,877
<BONDS>                                        214,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           280
<OTHER-SE>                                     434,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   922,123
<SALES>                                        354,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               355,424
<CGS>                                          291,436
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  337,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   167
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,180
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,535
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,360
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,175
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,175
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27336-27337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13343]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: [63 FR 26231, May 
12, 1998].

STATUS: Closed Meeting.

PLACE: 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

DATE PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED: May 12, 1998.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Additional Item.
    The following item was added to the closed meeting held on 
Thursday, May 14, 1998, at 10:00 a.m.:
    Settlement of injunctive action.
    Commissioner Unger, as duty officer, determined that Commission 
business required the above change and that no earlier notice thereof 
was possible.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary (202) 942-7070.


[[Page 27337]]


    Dated: May 14, 1998.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-13343 Filed 5-14-98; 3:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.01



                            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 DRYCLEAN USA, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
S. Steiner, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

         (2)      The information contained in the report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

November 10, 2005

                                                     /s/ Michael Steiner
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Michael S. Steiner
                                                     Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Furnished 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 Southern Investors Service Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March
31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Walter M. Mischer, Sr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



/s/ Walter M. Mischer, Sr.Name:

Walter M. Mischer, Sr.Title:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

May 20, 2005




A signed original of this
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Southern Investors Service Company, Inc. and will be retained by Southern Investors Service Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Jordan (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Jordan (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 5.11   | 4.40   | 4.10   | 3.99  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.28   | --     | --     | 6.31   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
# Supporting QLLEX

/ Published Aug. 16, 2019

Defense Logistics Agency Energy Americas provided fuel operations support and expertise during the U.S. Army Reserve’s 2019 Quartermaster Liquid Logistics Exercise at Fort Dix, New Jersey, July 22-31. 

The Army Reserve 475th Quartermaster Group hosted the exercise that includes all facets of petroleum and water operations – tactical and technical – from command and control, accountability and storage to fuel distribution and water procurement/production. 

DLA Energy experts shadowed Army Reserve fuel handlers, transporters, and laboratory specialists as they demonstrated their skills in real-world fuel support using military fuel tankers to transfer the DLA Energy-capitalized bulk petroleum products from Defense Fuel Support Points to Department of Defense installations across the nation. 

“Leveraging U.S. Army Reserve transportation in place of traditional industry nodes led to a significant $106,000 cost avoidance for DLA Energy,” said DLA Energy Americas at Houston Operations Officer Air Force Maj. Charles Morton. “DLA Energy quality assurance representatives and supply planners were critical to mission success leading to seamless delivery of more than three million gallons of fuel in an astounding six-day period.”Supply planners worked with DFSP Terminal Managers and downstream customers to substitute commercial supply chain nodes with Army Reserve organic transportation capability. Region QARs inspected 288 Army Reserve fuel tankers prior to exercise start and observed filling operations at several DFSPs to ensure proper procedures and fuel oversight was conducted. Throughout the exercise, the QARs maintained a forward presence in battalion tactical operations centers.  

Air Force Master Sgt. Jeff Sabo, a QAR for DLA Energy Americas at Houston, was assigned as the DLA Observer Controller for the exercise at DFSP Bordentown, New Jersey.

“My main objective is to always start by building a good rapport with the unit I will be shadowing,” he said. “As OC’s, it’s our responsibility to witness failures, successes and to provide real-time feedback.”  

Michael Purkey, also a QAR for DLA Energy Americas at Houston, has participated in QLLEX for the past eight years at DFSP Selma, North Carolina. 

“Both the terminal contractor and I agree this year was by far the best we’ve seen in terms of transport trailer readiness,” Purkey said. “We attribute that to the level of detail during the inspections, consistent inspection standards and strong guidance/training from the participating QAR’s.”  

“The exercise solidified the Army Reserve’s ability to sustain the U.S. Army liquid logistics operations,” Morton said. “Additionally, the Army Reserve proved to be a viable bulk petroleum transportation capability for DLA Energy Americas should commercial transportation nodes become disrupted.”

DLA Energy’s key role in the training exercise ensured wartime readiness and enduring DoD logistics supportability, said the 475th Quartermaster Group Commander Army Col. Laura Howell during the QLLEX Distinguished Visitors Day, July 28.
#### Com. v. Bizzel

12/01/2015

639 EAL (2014)

Denied

Pa.Super., 107 A.3d 102
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1924

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide clarification for

the deductibility of expenses incurred by a taxpayer in connection with

the business use of the home.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 10 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. EXON, and Mr. LIEBERMAN) introduced the

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

clarification for the deductibility of expenses incurred

by a taxpayer in connection with the business use of

the home.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Home Office Deduc5 tion Act of 1994’’.
2

•S 1924 IS

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL

2 PLACE OF BUSINESS.

3 Subsection (f) of section 280A of the Internal Reve4 nue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating paragraphs

5 (2), (3), and (4) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respec6 tively, and by inserting after paragraph (1) the following

7 new paragraph:

8 ‘‘(2) PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.—For

9 purposes of subsection (c), a home office shall in any

10 case qualify as the principal place of business if—

11 ‘‘(A) the office is the location where the

12 taxpayer’s essential administrative or manage13 ment activities are conducted on a regular and

14 systematic (and not incidental) basis by the tax15 payer, and

16 ‘‘(B) the office is necessary because the

17 taxpayer has no other location for the perform18 ance of the administrative or management ac19 tivities of the business.’’.

20 SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF STORAGE OF PRODUCT SAMPLES.

21 Paragraph (2) of section 280A(c) of the Internal Rev22 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘inventory’’

23 and inserting ‘‘inventory or product samples’’.

24 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

25 The amendments made by this Act shall apply to tax26 able years beginning after December 31, 1991.
3

•S 1924 IS

Æ
*January 18, 2018*

2018-Ohio-158.]

2017-0782.

#### Park View Federal Sav. Bank v. Nader.

Medina App. No. 16CA0004-M, 2017-Ohio-1482. Motion to stay proceedings below pending appeal denied as moot.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 21
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Name                                           Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----                                           -----------------------------

dELiA*s Operating Company                      Delaware
dELiA*s Distribution Company                   Delaware
dELiA*s Retail Company                         Delaware
dELiA*s Properties Inc.                        Delaware
dELiA*s Real Estate Holding Company            Delaware
iTurf Inc.                                     Delaware
iTurf Finance Company                          Delaware
Screeem! Inc.                                  Delaware
Storybook Inc.                                 Delaware
TSI Soccer Corporation                         North Carolina
TSI Retail Company                             Delaware
TSI Real Estate Holding Company                Delaware
dELiA*s Foreign Sales Corporation              Barbados
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Grupo Imsa, S.A. de C.V. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or § 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: June 30, 2004



|       |  |                           
|------ |  | --------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Eugenio Clariond Reyes
|Name:  |  | Eugenio Clariond Reyes    
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer   



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 96 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service
[T.D. 98-45]


Revocation of Inert Gas Services, Inc.; Customs Gauger Approval

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Revocation of Customs Gauger Approval.

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

SUMMARY: Inert Gas Services, Inc., of Pasadena, Texas, a Customs 
approved gauger, under Section 151.13 of the Customs Regulations (19 
CFR 151.13), has requested that the U.S. Customs Service revoke its 
gauger approval. Accordingly, pursuant to 151.13(f) of the Customs 
Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Customs commercial gauger 
approval of Inert Gas Services, Inc. has been revoked without 
prejudice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 30, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Parker, Science Officer, 
Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs Service, 1300 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 5.5-B, Washington, DC 20229 at (202) 927-
1060.

    Dated: May 6, 1998.
George D. Heavey,
Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 98-13215 Filed 5-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
#### Roland Vaval et al., Appellants, v Bernard Malone et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 382]

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated June 28, 2002, which, inter alia, denied their motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated October 25, 2001, granting the motion of the defendant Bernard Malone to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3126 upon the plaintiffs’ default in opposing it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a plaintiff seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious cause of action *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Parker v City of New York,*272 AD2d 310 [2000]). The plaintiffs failed to satisfy this standard. Therefore, the Supreme *840Court properly denied their motion. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# $/2jg) II-K

- (f t m Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:58 AM Sheet 273 of 325P. 2 

# /A \ 

# P) H-K-(A)- 5 

## V/

PROPOSE DENERGYSCENARI O EEA , Inc . Jun e 8 , 198 2 THI S INFORMATIO

N CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(A)- 5 — j L
# Propelling NASA’s rocket launch

/ Published May 14, 2019

Rocket fuel supplied by Defense Logistics Agency Energy launched the Northrop Grumman’s Antares rocket to resupply the International Space station  from Virginia’s Eastern Shore April 17.

The Antares rocket, filled with 21,500 pounds of rocket propellant for the first stage rocket and 500 pounds of hydrazine for the payload, launched the Cygnus NG-11 spacecraft from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility.

The Cygnus spacecraft resupply mission was hauling supplies to astronauts onboard the International Space Station. The spacecraft arrived at the orbiting laboratory April 19 and successfully completed its task of delivering 3 tons of science supplies and 40 intrepid mice for tests and observations to the ISS.

The Antares is designed to provide responsive space access, while the Cygnus is a cargo carrying space vehicle. The Cygnus, also known as the S.S. Roger Chaffee, was named after Roger Chaffee, an astronaut who lost his life in 1967 during a training mission for the Apollo 1.

“There are no boundaries to DLA Energy’s support, whether supplying fuel to the Warfighter in some far off land or to our international partners in outer space,” said DLA Energy Aerospace Customer Operations Director Steve Nichols.

Aerospace Energy’s support to Northrop Grumman’s 11th cargo flight to the space station under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services contract will support dozens of new and existing investigations.

“It is very rewarding that our space launch partners trust DLA Energy to fuel their rockets and take part in these incredible missions,” Nichols said. “I am very proud of the entire Aerospace Energy team and the professionalism they display everyday supporting our amazing customers.”
#### Com. v. Escobar

08/25/2016

175 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 145 A.3d 782
#### Tommy Lee Haywood et al., Respondents, v Grand Concourse Radiology et al., Defendants, and United Hospital Medical Center et al., Appellants.

[767 NYS2d 610]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about July 11, 2003, which, in a medical malpractice action, denied motions by defendants-appellants doctor and hospital to change venue to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A prior motion by appellants, among others, to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County was denied with leave to renew on the ground that the proofs were inconclusive as to whether defendant Dr. Jacobson, who had appeared, and *112defendants Dr. Wayne and Grand Concourse Radiology, who had not appeared and continue to be absent, were Bronx County residents at the time the action was commenced. Upon completion of disclosure some three years later, plaintiffs discontinued as against Dr. Jacobson, among others, leaving only appellants, Dr. Wayne and Grand Concourse as party defendants. Appellants then moved for a change of venue to Westchester County, arguing that the discontinuance against Dr. Jacobson severed any possible relationship the action may have had to Bronx County, since appellants were residents of Westchester County and the only other remaining defendants, Dr. Wayne and Grand Concourse, had not appeared. The motions were properly denied. While plaintiffs’ discontinuance against Dr. Jacobson is relevant to whether there should be a discretionary change of venue from the Bronx to Westchester *(see Fernandez v NYLCare Health Plans,*276 AD2d 268 [2000]; *Gramazio v Borda, Wallace & Witty,*181 AD2d 428 [1992]), we reject appellants’ argument that plaintiffs’ failure for more than a year to seek a default judgment against Dr. Wayne and Grand Concourse requires that their claims against those defendants be deemed abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). Absent an order dismissing these claims as abandoned, i.e., finding no sufficient cause for the delay *(see LaValle v Astoria Constr. & Paving Corp.,*266 AD2d 28 [1999]; *Graham v Chester,*60 AD2d 523 [1977]), Dr. Wayne and Grand Concourse remain parties to the action on whose residence plaintiffs can rely in selecting venue (CPLR 503 [a], [d]). Denial of appellants’ motions to change venue without leave to renew was a proper exercise of discretion given the late stage of the action *(cf.*CPLR 511 [b]) and appellants’ failure up to the present time to avail themselves of the leave granted in the prior order to adduce evidence of Dr. Wayne’s and Grand Concourse’s residences. We also note the evidence adduced by plaintiffs that these defendants had offices in Bronx County at the time the action was commenced. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.