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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FDS FOR PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 10-Q
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the September 30, 1996 Form 10-Q, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK> 0000067182
<NAME> MOBILCORP/JNICHOLS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,454
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,637
<PP&E>                                          55,311
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,993
<BONDS>                                          4,925
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        693
<COMMON>                                           890
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,227
<SALES>                                         57,642<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,546<F1>
<CGS>                                           33,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,368
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,715
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,427
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,288
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.57
<FN>
<F1>SALES AND TOTAL REVENUES INCLUDE $6,685 MILLION OF EXCISE AND
STATE GASOLINE TAXES
</FN>
        

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

<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>                                          
ARTICLE 5 FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE (FDS) FOR PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 10-Q
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the March
31, 1999 Form 10-Q, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>     0000067182
<NAME>    JOYCE NICHOLS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                                          <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                                 757
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        5,522
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                                          1,952
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     8,867
<PP&E>                                                              48,930
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      24,147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      42,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                               13,504
<BONDS>                                                              3,741
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                            633
<COMMON>                                                               899
<OTHER-SE>                                                          16,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        42,796
<SALES>                                                             11,991  <F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    12,183  <F1>
<CGS>                                                                7,410
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        8,007
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     2,584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      82
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        711
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           247
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    464
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           464
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0.58
<FN>
<F1>SALES AND TOTAL REVENUES INCLUDE $1,432 MILLION OF EXCISE AND STATE
GASOLINE TAXES
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
May 30, 2014

CAAP-12-0000980

#### State v. Murphy

Affirmed
# Agency employees make every day a Flag Day

/ Published June 12, 2020
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Many Americans will continue a 104-year-old tradition June 14 when they celebrate Flag Day to show respect for the Star Spangled Banner, something Defense Logistics Agency employees do year round.

President Wilson created the observance in 1916 to honor the official adoption of the Stars and Stripes as the national flag. The American flags that DLA Disposition Services personnel receive from customers are routinely honored through the extra attention they receive. The Defense Department manual governing the disposition of excess and surplus property directs that “flags with sentimental or historical significance” be treated differently. Flags with such significance may, according to the manual, “be donated to museums, preserved as historical property, displayed in a collection, or donated to an authorized donor.”

Flags without such significance go through the regular reutilization, transfer or donation cycles to seek new users for them. Flags that do not find a home with RTD customers can be considered for public sale if they are in good condition. For the flags that are not suitable for RTD or sales, the manual requires that they be destroyed privately, “preferably by burning, in such a manner as not to suggest disrespect.”

Employees at the DLA Disposition Services site at Tucson, Arizona, were successful in placing a large amount of flags with new users. In fact, the 2,556 flags they received last September comprised 96% of the American flags received by DLA Disposition Services since last year’s Flag Day.

“It’s great to support federal agencies with our national symbol,” said Area Manager David Powell.

For DLA Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon – son of a World War II veteran, brother to a Vietnam vet and retired from 33 year of Air Force service – every day is Flag Day as he proudly flies the Stars and Stripes at home on his 20’ pole in the middle of his front yard.

Before leading a global disposition workforce, Cannon said he learned about the proper disposal of retired flags in the Boy Scouts. Since those days he has seen the flag used in many ways.

“During my first tour in Iraq, I loaded far too many flag-draped transfer cases, some of them carrying my Airmen, on military aircraft for their final trip home,” Cannon said. “Five years ago this month, I sat on the flight line at Dover Air Force Base with the family of Krissie Davis as her flag-draped transfer case was escorted off the C-17.”

Davis was killed while deployed as a DLA employee in Afghanistan in 2015, and her remains were brought home to her family and friends in Anniston, Alabama.

Cannon said the memories he described have given him a profound respect for the flag, which he shares with his workforce as he encourages them to honor our nation’s flag through the proper displaying, handling and disposal of retired flags.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15182]



[[Page 31201]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-423-809, C-475-823, C-580-832, and C-791-806]


Notice of Postponement of Time Limit for Countervailing Duty 
Investigations: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Italy, the 
Republic of Korea, and the Republic of South Africa

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Import Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak Smith (Belgium), at (202) 482-
1279; Cynthia Thirumalai (Italy), at (202) 482-4087; Christopher Cassel 
(the Republic of Korea), at (202) 482-4847; and Dana Mermelstein (the 
Republic of South Africa), at (202) 482-0984, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

Postponement

    On April 20, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
initiated countervailing duty investigations of stainless steel plate 
in coils from Belgium, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic 
of South Africa. On May 27, 1998, in accordance with section 351.205(e) 
of the Department's regulations, petitioners made a timely request that 
the Department postpone its preliminary determinations. As we find no 
compelling reasons to deny this request, we are postponing the 
preliminary determinations in these investigations to no later than 
August 28, 1998, pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended.
    This notice is published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act.

    Dated: June 1, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-15182 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Stark v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., LLC

10/07/2015

234 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 116 A.3d 760
#### Bronski Dockery, Respondent, v UPACA Site 7 Associates, LP, et al., Appellants.

[48 NYS3d 603]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered on or about August 3, 2016, which granted the branch of plaintiff’s motion that sought leave to amend the bill of particulars, and denied defendants’ motion to strike the proposed amended bill of particulars dated April 12, 2016 and dismiss the complaint; and order, same court and Justice, entered August 18, 2016, which, among other things, granted the branch of plaintiff’s motion that sought leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the pleadings, as plaintiff’s proposed amendment to change the date of the alleged accident would not cause prejudice or surprise *(see Cherebin v Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc.,*43 AD3d 364, 365 [1st Dept 2007]; *see also*CPLR 3025 [b]). The date of the accident is not central to defendants’ theory of the case *(compare Garguilo v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*137 AD3d 708, 709 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 905 [2016]). Moreover, plaintiff submitted a reasonable excuse for the delay and an affidavit of merit in support of the motion.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Friedman, Maz-zarelli, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
No. 12-8736.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TERRANCE LAMONT EDMONDS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 239 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of October, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# Final Loglines available online 

/ Published Sept. 23, 2019
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 
The final issue of the Defense Logistics Agency’s flagship publication, Loglines magazine, highlights National Account Manager teams and customer support representatives that serve as gateways to logistics support for long-range operations and last-minute needs.

Stories include in-depth looks at how NAMs and CSRs support the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force. In “Real-time Readiness,” readers learn about DLA’s online Service Readiness Dashboard, which gives a near real-time view of readiness rates for key weapons systems and metrics for military industrial sites. And “Tools of the Trade” describes how self-help tools like FedMall and the DLA Customer Assistance Handbook empowers troops to quickly find their own answers to questions on material availability and order status.

Read this issue online.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-51203

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICIO CRUZ, also known as Ticho,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-99-CR-972-1-DB

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

August 21, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patricio Cruz appeals the sentence he received after this

court remanded his case to the district court for a hearing at

which the Government and he were instructed to introduce evidence

relevant to Cruz’s involvement with marijuana seized on April 13,

1999, in an incident other than the one made the basis of the

indictment. Cruz argues that the law of the case doctrine

precluded the district court from allowing the Government to
No. 01-51203

-2-

introduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses at the hearing

because this court had already determined on appeal that there

was insufficient evidence to corroborate the details of the

report on which the presentence report relied. 

The quantity of marijuana in the April 13 transaction was

not, however, the law of the case inasmuch as this court remanded

the issue to the district court to be determined on remand. 

United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Cruz ignores the mandate rule, which provides that a lower court

on remand must implement both the letter and the spirit of the

appellate court's mandate and may not disregard the explicit

directives of that court. Id. Given that the district court

followed the mandate of this court when it allowed the Government

to introduce evidence at the sentencing hearing, the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 12-8449.

#### Worthy *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 12-8244.

#### Stinson *v.*Bickell, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### PNY III, LLC, Formerly Known as PNY III, LP, et al., Plaintiffs, v Axis Design Group International, LLC, et al., Respondents, and ULM II Holding Corp, Appellant. United Church Insurance Association, as Subrogee of Church of the Covenant Presbyterian, Plaintiff, v Axis Design Group International, LLC, et al., Respondents, and ULM II Holding Corp, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 58]

Appeals from orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered November 16, 2015, which granted the motions of defendants Axis Design Group International LLC (Axis) and Joseph V. Lieber, P.E., pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), dismissing plaintiff PNY III, LLC f/k/a PNY III, LP and American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company a/s/o PNY III, LLC f/k/a PNY III, LP,’s (PNY) complaint as against them, and dismissing plaintiff United Church Insurance Association a/s/o Church of the Covenant Presbyterian’s (United Church) complaint as against them, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

In each of these appeals, ULM, which appeals the respective dismissals of plaintiffs PNY’s and United Church’s direct claims as against Axis and Lieber, is not an aggrieved party *(see Rodriguez v Heritage Hills Socy., Ltd,,*141 AD3d 482, 483 [1st Dept 2016], citing *Hecht v City of New York,*60 NY2d 57 [1983]; *see also Rojas v Paine,*125 AD3d 742 [2d Dept 2015]). Moreover, PNY settled its action with Axis and Lieber, releasing those defendants and executing a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice, and the Church has discontinued, with prejudice, its action against Axis and Leiber. Thus, even if ULM were an aggrieved party, these appeals must nevertheless be dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Anonymous v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*70 NY2d 972, 974 [1988]).

We have considered ULM’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

[Prior Case History: 2015 NY Slip Op 32164(U).]
Charge Questions AEATF Liquid Pour Study Proposal

Study Title : “A Study for Measurement of Potentia l Dermal and Inhalation Exposure During Manual Pouring of a Liquid Containing an Antimicrobial”

If the AEATF liquid pour study prop osal is revised as suggested in EPA’s review and if the research is performed as described:

1. Is the research likely to generate scientif ically reliable data, us eful for assessing the exposure of individuals who manually pour liquid antimicrobial products?

2. Is the research likely to meet the applicab le requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K

and L?
# C_2011027EN.01002301.xml

| 28.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/23

---

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex) for the financial year 2010 — Amending Budget No 2

(2011/C 27/06)

REVENUE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Budget 2010 | Amending budget No 2 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 9 |
| REVENUE |
| 9 0 | SUBSIDIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS | 88 290 843 | 4 556 085 | 92 846 928 |
| | Title 9 — Total | 88 290 843 | 4 556 085 | 92 846 928 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 88 290 843 | 4 556 085 | 92 846 928 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Budget 2010

Amending budget No 2

New amount

9

9

REVENUE

REVENUE

9 0

SUBSIDIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS

88 290 843

4 556 085

92 846 928

Title 9 — Total

Title 9 — Total

88 290 843

88 290 843

4 556 085

4 556 085

92 846 928

92 846 928

GRAND TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

88 290 843

88 290 843

4 556 085

4 556 085

92 846 928

92 846 928

EXPENDITURE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Appropriations 2010 | Amending budget No 2 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 |
| STAFF |
| | Title 1 — Total | 20 085 000 | | 20 085 000 |
| 2 |
| OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE |
| 2 1 | DATA-PROCESSING | 5 165 000 | 256 085 | 5 421 085 |
| | Title 2 — Total | 10 894 000 | 256 085 | 11 150 085 |
| 3 |
| OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES |
| 3 0 | OPERATIONS | 43 111 843 | 1 000 000 | 44 111 843 |
| 3 4 | MANAGEMENT OF TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT | 1 400 000 | 2 500 000 | 3 900 000 |
| 3 5 | MISCELLANEOUS OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES | 1 950 000 | 800 000 | 2 750 000 |
| | Title 3 — Total | 57 311 843 | 4 300 000 | 61 611 843 |
| 4 |
| EARMARKED EXPENDITURE |
| | Title 4 — Total | p.m. | | p.m. |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 88 290 843 | 4 556 085 | 92 846 928 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Appropriations 2010

Amending budget No 2

New amount

1

1

STAFF

STAFF

Title 1 — Total

Title 1 — Total

20 085 000

20 085 000

20 085 000

20 085 000

2

2

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

2 1

DATA-PROCESSING

5 165 000

256 085

5 421 085

Title 2 — Total

Title 2 — Total

10 894 000

10 894 000

256 085

256 085

11 150 085

11 150 085

3

3

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

3 0

OPERATIONS

43 111 843

1 000 000

44 111 843

3 4

MANAGEMENT OF TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT

1 400 000

2 500 000

3 900 000

3 5

MISCELLANEOUS OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

1 950 000

800 000

2 750 000

Title 3 — Total

Title 3 — Total

57 311 843

57 311 843

4 300 000

4 300 000

61 611 843

61 611 843

4

4

EARMARKED EXPENDITURE

EARMARKED EXPENDITURE

Title 4 — Total

Title 4 — Total

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

GRAND TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

88 290 843

88 290 843

4 556 085

4 556 085

92 846 928

92 846 928

---
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1479]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[NAFTA-01967]

University Technical Services, Incorporated, University Energy, 
Canton, New York; Amended Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility 
To Apply for NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 250(A), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title 
II, of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor 
issued a Certification for NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance on 
November 28, 1997, applicable to all workers of University Technical 
Services, Incorporated, San Diego, California. The notice was published 
in the Federal Register on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32376).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
negative determination for workers of the subject firm. New findings 
show that the Department incorrectly identified the subject firm 
location. The investigation conducted for the subject firm was 
conducted on behalf of workers engaged in providing operations and 
maintenance services for electricity generation located in Canton, New 
York. San Diego, California is the Administrative Services office of 
the subject firm and is not the subject of the investigation. The 
Department is amending the negative determination to correctly identify 
the city and state to read Canton, New York.

Conclusion

    After careful review, I determine that all workers at University 
Technical Services, Incorporated, Canton, New York are denied 
eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of the Trade Act 
of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 23rd day of December, 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-1479 Filed 1-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
159 A.3d 883

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. GINO N. DISTEFANO (A/K/A GINO N. DISTEPHANO, NICK DISTEFFANO, GINO N. DISTEFFANO AND NICK DISTEFANO), DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 1, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.