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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          35,039
<SECURITIES>                                     9,311
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                       134
<INVENTORY>                                         32
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,795
<PP&E>                                           2,338
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,210
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,053
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,614
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,263
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,114
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,572)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         8
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,564)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,564)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.64)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 5

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF MAILCODE : WU-16J

CERTIFIED MAIL 7009 1680 0000 7670 8029 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mark Burau Decatur Corn Plant Manager Archer Daniels Midland Company 4666 Faries Parkway Decatur, Illinois 62526

Re: Completeness Review of Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit Applications for a Geologic Sequestration Well, United States Environmental Protection Agency

UIC Permit No. IL-115-6A-0001

Dear Mr. Burau:

On July 27, 2011 we received your permit application for the carbon sequestration well to be located in Decatur, Illinois. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 124.3(c) requires us to perform a completeness review within 30 days of our receipt of the application. We have reviewed the application and determined that you did not provide the financial assurance documentation needed to make sure that there will be funds available for closure and post closure care of this facility. We understand that the exact amount of necessary funds cannot be

determined at this time. Please be aware that the financial assurance documentation must be provided and reviewed prior to the issuance of a draft permit. We are proceeding with the evaluation of the information for technical soundness and compliance with applicable Underground Injection Control regulations. If a dditional information is necessary to clarify, modify or supplement the information you provided, we will notify you. When we determine that the information you provided is sufficient for a permitting decision, a draft decision will be made and a statement of basis will be prepared and supplied to you as well as the public for

comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to c ontact Dana Rzeznik of my staff at (312) 353- 6492 or rzeznik.dana@epa.gov.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen M. Jann, Acting Chief Underground Injection Control Branch
Exhibit 10.4.2


                                                               EXECUTION VERSION


                        START-UP LOAN TRANCHE SUPPLEMENT

This Start-Up Loan Tranche Supplement is made between Northern Rock plc (the
"Issuer Start-Up Loan Provider"), Granite Master Issuer plc ("Master Issuer")
and the Bank of New York (the "Issuer Security Trustee") in relation to the
provision of a Start-Up Loan Tranche by the Issuer Start-Up Loan Provider to the
Master Issuer on the following terms:

o     Closing Date            -     24 May, 2006

o     Principal amount        -     (GBP)32,483,000

o     Interest rate           -     LIBOR for three month sterling deposits plus
                                    0.9 per cent. per annum

o     Payment Dates           -     Each Monthly Payment Date or, if such date
                                    is not a London Business Day, then the next
                                    following London Business Day

This Start-Up Loan Tranche Supplement is supplemental to the Start-Up Loan
Agreement dated 19 January, 2005 between the parties hereto (the "Start-Up Loan
Agreement"). Capitalised terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have
the meanings assigned to them in the Start-Up Loan Agreement.

This Start-Up Loan Tranche Supplement is made on 24 May, 2006.


as Master Issuer
EXECUTED for and on behalf of                   )
GRANITE MASTER ISSUER PLC                       )
acting by a director                            )

/s/ S. Tyson
-------------------------


Name: Sharon Tyson



as Issuer Start-Up Loan Provider
EXECUTED for and on behalf of                   )
NORTHERN ROCK PLC                               )
by                                              )

/s/ Christopher Jobe
-------------------------


Name: Christopher Jobe


                                       1
<PAGE>

as Issuer Security Trustee
EXECUTED for and on behalf of                   )
THE BANK OF NEW YORK                            )
by                                              )

/s/ Kate Russell
-------------------------


Name: Kate Russell
      Vice President

                                       2
No. 10-5298.

#### Lisa Denise Bishop, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 914, 131 S. Ct. 272,

178 L. Ed. 2d 180,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6857.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 603 F.3d 279.
DA 09-0614

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2010 MT 109N

LAWRENCE ROEDEL,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,

In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV 08-1313(B)

Honorable Katherine R. Curtis, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Larry Roedel, (self-represented litigant); Shelby, Montana

For Appellee:

Hon. Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; John Paulson,

Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Montana

Edward J. Corrigan, Flathead County Attorney; Kalispell, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: April 21, 2010

Decided: May 18, 2010

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

May 18 2010
2

Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal

Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, the following memorandum decision shall not be

cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme

Court, and its case title, Supreme Court cause number, and disposition shall be included

in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and

Montana Reports.

¶2 Lawrence Roedel appeals the order of the District Court denying his petition for

postconviction relief. In the underlying case, a Flathead County jury convicted Roedel of

deliberate homicide for shooting his wife. We affirmed the conviction in State v. Roedel,

2007 MT 291, 339 Mont. 489, 171 P.3d 694.

¶3 Roedel petitioned for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of

counsel, as well as misconduct by police and prosecutors. The District Court denied

Roedel’s petition, reasoning that it was not only technically defective, but also that it

lacked substantive merit. On appeal Roedel repeats his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel

and prosecutorial-misconduct arguments. Summarizing his appeal, Roedel insists, “The

State has no evidence not born out of fabrication and perjured testimony.”

¶4 We review a denial of postconviction relief to determine whether the district

court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law are

correct. Robinson v. State, 2010 MT 51, ¶ 10, 355 Mont. 326, ___ P.3d ___. We review

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims de novo. Id.
3

¶5 We have decided to dispose of this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(i) of

our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, which provides for

memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the record before us that the District Court’s

factual findings were supported by sufficient evidence and its legal conclusions supported

by settled law. We therefore affirm.

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

We concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
#### Life and Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee, *Plaintiff in*Error, vs. Winifred Kelly, joined by her husband, J. R. Kelly, *Defendants in Error.*

144 So. 306.

Opinion filed November 7, 1932.

Petition for rehearing denied November 25, 1932.

*Bussey, Mann & Ba/i'ton,*of St. Petersburg, for Plaintiff in Error;

*Kelly and Easier,*of Clearwater, for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in said judgment. It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said judgment of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Buford, C.J. and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
# June leadership award recipient leads with innovation

/ Published Sept. 22, 2021
Richmond, Va., 
Measurable results are key to understanding how successful a program can be, and results are a valuable tool for the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Business Process Support Directorate team. Strategic Business Analytics Division Chief Dean Gilbert’s team’s efforts to refine business case analysis, or BCA, along with other innovative approaches, have earned him the June DLA Aviation Leadership Award.

                (Courtesy Graphic)                            White receives March Leadership Award: nurtures success through relationships                            (Courtesy Graphic)            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Natalie SkeltonVIRIN: 200826-D-D0441-1001The award recognizes leaders who promote and demonstrate the four dimensions of transformative leadership: idealized Influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

The BCA process includes repeatable measurements and produces repeatable results that support DLA Aviation’s performance-based acquisitions. In addition to BCA, Gilbert’s team manages DLA Aviation’s strategic sourcing plan, performance-based logistics metrics and data analytics.. 

Gilbert’s nominator, Deputy Director of Strategic Acquisition Programs Randall Dortch, said, “Dean leads by example while including his team in complex assignments to allow them to learn from him as they complete the tasks together.”

Dortch said Gilbert practices individualized consideration with his team as he coaches them to tackle initiatives with limited oversight.

“I believe it is very important to take a team approach in solving complex problems and developing processes,” Gilbert said. “By including everyone, you get multiple perspectives to a problem, and everyone learns from the discussions that take place.”

Gilbert and his team developed the strategic sourcing plan process, which identifies stable long-term contract candidates targeted in the plan. 

“By placing these items on long-term contract, DLA Aviation has increased material availability and reduced manual workload,” Dortch said. “So far this fiscal year, DLA Aviation has achieved net growth of 9,571 national item identification numbers on long term contract.”

“My team is constantly on the forefront in developing innovative tools and processes to support DLA Aviation’s strategic acquisitions,” Gilbert said. “They take pride in taking senior leadership’s strategic vision and developing ways to enable us to meet this vision.”
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10126 Summary Calendar

DAVID CHASE BOYD, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:95-CV-30

- - - - - - - - - - July 18, 1996 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David Chase Boyd, Texas state prisoner #588655, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas relief. Boyd contends that the district court erroneously accorded the state court’s findings of fact a presumption of correctness and improperly denied him an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record and Boyd’s brief and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for essentially the reasons statedNo. 96-10126 - 2 - by the district court. Boyd v. Scott , No. 7:95-CV-30-X (N.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 1996).
AFFIRMED.
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

### Water Analysis Form REP-703 Rev. 1, 11/2013



### Location: Amos Plant Report Date: 7/24/2014 Sample Number: 142521-001 Date Collected:07/15/2014 09:18 Date Received:7/15/2014 

### WWTP Inlet Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 313000 10000 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 4000 07/23/2014 

### Sample Number: 142521-002 Date Collected:07/15/2014 09:13 Date Received:7/15/2014 

### Primary Clarifier Outlet A Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 168 20 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 8 07/23/2014 

### Sample Number: 142521-003 Date Collected:07/15/2014 09:11 Date Received:7/15/2014 

### Primary Clarifier Outlet B Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 172 20 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 8 07/23/2014 

### Sample Number: 142521-004 Date Collected:07/15/2014 09:01 Date Received:7/15/2014 

### Secondary Clarifier Outlet A Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 9.7 5 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 2 07/23/2014 

### Sample Number: 142521-005 Date Collected:07/15/2014 09:04 Date Received:7/15/2014 

### Secondary Clarifier Outlet B Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 13.1 5 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 2 07/23/2014 

### Sample Number: 142521-006 Date Collected:07/15/2014 09:26 Date Received:7/15/2014 

### WWTP Outlet Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 11.5 5 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 2 07/23/2014 

### Sample Number: 142521-007 Date Collected:07/15/2014 08:47 Date Received:7/15/2014 

### FGD Landfill Discharge to Pond Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 62.5 10 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 4 07/23/2014 Amos Plant, 142521 Page 1 of 2

### Location: Amos Plant Report Date: 7/24/2014 Sample Number: 142521-008 Date Collected:07/15/2014 08:14 Date Received:7/15/2014 

### Recirculation Pond Outlet at Weir Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 3.4 1 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 0.4 07/23/2014 

### Sample Number: 142521-009 Date Collected:07/15/2014 08:42 Date Received:7/15/2014 

### Clearwater Pond at Weir Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 6.4 2 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 0.8 07/23/2014

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit. Dave Conover, Senior Chemist Email dpconover@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4219 Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4219

Amos Plant, 142521 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002I, Sheldon C. Fenton certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Veridien Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth physical quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 2, 2005                                                                     /s/ Sheldon C. Fenton   Sheldon C. Fenton, Chief Executive Officer     
19
#### In the Matter of Damell C., Appellant.

[59 NYS3d 103]—

Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Alan Beckoff, J.), dated June 8, 2016. The order of disposition adjudicated Damell C. a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of dispo*680sition as placed Darnell C. on. probation for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, as the period of placement has expired *(see Matter of Deandre Mc.,*124 AD3d 786, 787 [2015]). However, because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent has not been rendered academic *(see*Family Ct Act § 783; *Matter of Deandre Mc.,*124 AD3d at 787).

The appellant failed to preserve for appellate review his present challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence regarding the identification of him as the perpetrator and of the evidence of physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) *(see Matter of Jonathan A.,*36 AD3d 697, 698 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant was the perpetrator and that the complainant’s injuries rose to the level of physical injury as defined by Penal Law § 10.00 (9) *(see Matter of Danielle B.,*94 AD3d 757, 758 [2012]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s findings that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute assault in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 120.05 (2) and (12), and criminal possession in the fourth degree in violation of Penal Law § 265.01 (2), were not against the weight of the evidence *(see id.).*

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Connolly and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATE

I, Christopher T. Fraser, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of KMG Chemicals, Inc.; and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: November 14, 2018 |   | /s/ Christopher T. Fraser             |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                         |   | Christopher T. Fraser                 |
|                         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |