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



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FIRST
QUARTER REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000065873
<NAME>                        ALLTEL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>1000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            29,277
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    771,859
<ALLOWANCES>                                      33,124
<INVENTORY>                                       92,091
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 975,452
<PP&E>                                         8,669,120
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,664,872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,861,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,120,243
<BONDS>                                        3,604,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              4,991
<PREFERRED>                                        9,114
<COMMON>                                         281,346
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,296,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,861,079
<SALES>                                          127,617
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,368,362
<CGS>                                            124,046
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,031,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                64,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  285,473
<INCOME-TAX>                                     118,791
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              166,682
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     166,450
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .59
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan D. Green, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 906]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), imposed October 7, 2015, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             MAY-23-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,323,908               1,323,908
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  288,253                 288,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,727,956               1,727,956
<PP&E>                                       3,522,523               3,522,523
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,875                  34,875
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,896,510              38,896,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,492,986               2,492,986
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        33,708                  33,708
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,896,510              38,896,510
<SALES>                                              0                  16,376
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                  16,376
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,192,264               7,337,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,252                 110,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,187,793)             (7,394,873)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,129,225)             (7,336,305)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)                       0
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-5833.

#### Ineye Dakoureye Bobmanuel, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 939, 131 S. Ct. 350,

178 L. Ed. 2d 227,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7292.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 693.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2320 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2320

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement 
 that veterans of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the dependents 
 and survivors of such veterans be paid certain benefits in Philippine 
                                 pesos.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 26 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

 Mr. Rockefeller (by request) introduced the following bill; which was 
     read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement 
 that veterans of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the dependents 
 and survivors of such veterans be paid certain benefits in Philippine 
                                 pesos.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Philippine Veterans Currency Act of 
1994''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT OF PAYMENT OF CERTAIN BENEFITS IN 
              PHILIPPINE PESOS.

    (a) In General.--Section 107 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in the flush matter in subsection (a) below paragraph 
        (3)--
                    (A) by striking out ``in pesos''; and
                    (B) by striking out ``in Philippine pesos''; and
            (2) in the flush matter in subsection (b) below paragraph 
        (3)--
                    (A) by striking out ``in pesos''; and
                    (B) by striking out ``in Philippine pesos''.
    (b) Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance.--(1) Section 
3532(d) of such title is amended by striking out ``in Philippine 
pesos''.
    (2) Section 3565(b)(1) of such title is amended by striking out 
``in Philippine pesos''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-5589.

#### Terry Owens, Petitioner v. John Marshall, Warden.

562 U.S. 930, 131 S. Ct. 324,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7215,

178 L. Ed. 2d 210,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1340

OSCAR HUMBERTO ESCOBAR SUAREZ, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-496-328) Submitted: June 16, 2004 Decided: July 7, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oscar Humberto Escobar Suarez, Petitioner Pro Se. Michele Yvette Francis Sarko, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Gloria Minor, Michelle Elizabeth Gorden, Daniel Eric Goldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Oscar Humberto Escobar Suarez, a native and citizen of Columbia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing the appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and wi thholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the administrative record, the Board’s order and the immigration judge’s decision, and find substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Suarez failed to establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 483-84). We do not find the record so compelling as to reverse the Board. We further find no error in the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny Suarez’s petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.- 3 - PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MONARCH
CEMENT COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,692,205
<SECURITIES>                                11,748,702
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,455,437
<ALLOWANCES>                                   428,000
<INVENTORY>                                 17,410,340
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,611,677
<PP&E>                                     113,927,629
<DEPRECIATION>                              81,641,481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              85,833,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,055,668
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,390,435
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,424,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                85,833,693
<SALES>                                     46,365,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            46,365,884
<CGS>                                       38,382,778
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,382,778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,659,111
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,700,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,959,111
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,959,111
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71


</TABLE>
**STATE OF** **NEBRASKA OFFICE** **OF THE** **GOVERNOR P.O.** **Box 94848** **• Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4848** **Phone, (402) 4** **71-2244 • pete.ricketts@nebraska.gov** **Pete Ricketts** **Go1.1ernor July** **7, 2015** **Mark Hague /\cting** **Regional Administrator** **EPA Region** **VII I 120 i** **Renner Boulevard** **Lenexa, Kansas** **66219 RE:** **Iowa-Nebraska Light** **and Power Company** **Fonner Manufactured** **Gas Plant** **(FMGP) Site,** **Norfolk, NE** **NDEQ ID:** **77312 Program** **ID: SF,** **NED986373678 Subject:** **Proposed NPL** **Listing Dear** **Mr. I** **[ague: This** **is in** **response to** **your March** **23, 2015** **request for** **a written** **statement of** **my position** **pe11aining to** **the proposed** **listing of** **the former** **Iowa-Nebraska Light** **and Power** **Co. FMGP site** **on the Superfund** **National Priorities** **List. I** **concur with** **EPA 's** **proposal to** **list the** **Norfolk site** **on the** **National Priorities List.** **My recommendation** **is based** **on written comments received from Norfolk Mayor** **Sue Fuchtman** **who has** **the full** **support of** **the City** **Council members,** **in addition** **to the** **information that** **has been** **provided to** **me by** **the Nebraska** **Department of** **Environmental Quality** **and the** **U.S. Environmental Protection** **Agency. Based** **on the** **available information,** **the proposed** **listing is the** **appropriate approach** **to address** **this environmental** **concern. This** **is a** **significant issue** **that requires** **a coordinated** **and effective** **response_ l** **appreciate EPA's** **efforts to** **seek concurrence** **from the** **state and** **from local** **officials before** **making a** **final decision** **regarding listing this groundwater contamination site.** **The State** **of Nebraska will** **continue to** **provide cooperative** **support as we** **move forward** **in the** **Superfund remedial** **action process.** **Thank you** **for your** **involvement and** **EPA 's** **ongoing efforts** **to address** **this situation.** **Sincerely, Governor** **An Equal** **Opportunity Employer**
Guidelines for inclusion of recent scientific literature in the 

Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report. 

We are very grateful to the many reviewers of the second draft of the Working Group I 

contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report for suggestions received on issues of balance 

and citation of additional scientific literature. To ensure clarity and transparency in determining 

how such material might be included in the final Working Group I report, the following 

guidelines will be used by Lead Authors in considering such suggestions. 

In preparing the final draft of the IPCC Working Group I report, Lead Authors may include 

scientific papers published in 2006 where, in their judgment, doing so would advance the goal of 

achieving a balance of scientific views in addressing reviewer comments. However, new issues 

beyond those covered in the second order draft will not be introduced at this stage in the 

preparation of the report. 

Reviewers are invited to submit copies of additional papers that are either in-press or published in 

2006, along with the chapter and section number1 to which this material could pertain, via email 

to ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov, not later than July 24, 2006. In the case of in-press papers a copy of 

the final acceptance letter from the journal is requested for our records. All submissions must be 

received by the TSU not later than July 24, 2006 and incomplete submissions can not be 

accepted. 

1

 see report outline at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_outline.pdf
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.01

                             MACROVISION CORPORATION
                            SEPARATION DATE AGREEMENT

     THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of December 3, 2004, by and
between Macrovision Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Ian
R. Halifax ("Executive").

     WHEREAS, Executive has advised the Company that he is voluntarily
terminating his employment with the Company to take an executive position with
another employer; and

     WHEREAS, Executive and the Company have agreed upon the date through which
Executive is to continue in employment with the Company and the compensation for
such continued employment;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and Executive agree as follows:

     1.   SEPARATION DATE. Executive's last day of employment with the Company
shall be January 14, 2005, and Executive shall perform his duties as the
Company's chief financial officer through such date.

     2.   2004 EIP. In consideration for Executive's continued employment
through the date specified above, the Company shall pay to Executive (in
addition to his base salary and other regular compensation through such date)
100% of his Executive Incentive Plan ("EIP") target bonus for fiscal year 2004,
which payment shall be made on or before March 15, 2005, when the Company makes
EIP payments to its executives generally.

     3.   ARBITRATION. The arbitration procedures set forth in the Executive
Severance and Arbitration Agreement dated June 24, 2002 between the Company and
Executive shall apply to this Agreement.

     4.   GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard or reference
to the rules of conflicts of law that would require the application of the laws
of any other jurisdiction.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement,
effective as of the date set forth in the first paragraph hereof.

MACROVISION CORPORATION                     EXECUTIVE


By     /s/ William A. Krepick                    /s/ Ian Halifax
  ---------------------------------         ------------------------------------
       William A. Krepick                   IAN HALIFAX
       Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-5910.

#### Shi Yong Wei, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 955, 131 S. Ct. 358,

178 L. Ed. 2d 255,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7817.

October 4, 2010.

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

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 121.
* 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. 99-21053

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL., JACK J. GRYNBERG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GPM GAS CORPORATION; PHILLIPS PIPELINE CO.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CV-2484

- - - - - - - - - -

November 9, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jack J. Grynberg, relator, appeals from the district

court’s dismissal of his qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act

(“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. Grynberg sued the defendant

companies on behalf of the Government, seeking to recover a portion

of natural gas royalties owed the Government, based on the

defendants’ having allegedly mismeasured and falsely reported the

volume and heating content of gas they produced on Indian lands.

The district court dismissed the action pursuant to United States

ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, 982 F. Supp. 1261
No. 99-21053

-2-

(S.D. Tex. 1997) (“Riley I”), indicating that Grynberg lacked

standing under Article III of the Constitution to bring a lawsuit

on behalf of the Government. 

Both the relator and the defendants now acknowledge that

both the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc have

since recognized that a private citizen has standing to file an FCA

complaint under the FCA’s qui tam provisions. See Vermont Agency

of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S.

765, 778 (2000); Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 252 F.3d 749,

752 (5th Cir. 2001) (“Riley III”). Moreover, the defendants admit

that Riley III forecloses their contentions that the FCA’s

qui tam provisions violate the Take Care and Appointments Clauses

of Article II of the Constitution. See Riley III, 252 F.3d at 758.

Accordingly, the decision of the district court is

REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to the district court for

further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
No. 09-1401.

#### Laura S. Solway, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

562 U.S. 832, 131 S. Ct. 109,

178 L. Ed. 2d 31,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6674.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# DLA director meets with DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City leadership team

/ Published Feb. 14, 2022
RICHMOND, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic saw how the DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City team supports the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex’s critical missions during her Feb. 9 visit to Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma.

“The team was excited and honored to host the director. It has been some time since we had a distinguished visitor from DLA Headquarters leadership come visit us and we are very proud of the work we do here,” said. DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City Commander Air Force Col. Jason Kalin whose team hosted her during the visit.

Skubic’s day started off meeting Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom Miller, Commander, Air Force Sustainment Center. After this, she toured one of the 23 DLA Aviation Shop Service Centers on Tinker that supplies parts to the maintenance activities.

Before departing, Skubic received a briefing about Air Force KC-46 Pegasus supportability and Federal Aviation Administration traceability requirements.

DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City Director of Operations Air Force Maj. Michael Lewis said the brief updated the director on all the work DLA Aviation has done in bringing on the new tanker aircraft, including developing the process for how the Air Force and DLA will maintain the documentation for KC-46 consumables that will allow the aircraft to maintain FAA certification. Lewis said this certification allows the Air Force to leverage commercial resources for access to a larger pool of aircraft parts.

“This is a new requirement for the Air Force to take on and DLA Aviation has been instrumental in creating the way forward,” Lewis said.

Skubic also spent time with the team at DLA Distribution on Tinker during her visit.

Related story: DLA Aviation parts support ensures tankers available for aerial refueling mission > Defense Logistics Agency > News Article View