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

 <ARTICLE>         5
 <LEGEND>
 THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997
 OF MOSINEE PAPER CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
 TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
 </LEGEND>
        
 <S>                                         <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
 <PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1997
 <CASH>                                        2,675,606
 <SECURITIES>                                          0
 <RECEIVABLES>                                31,223,634
 <ALLOWANCES>                                  2,404,147
 <INVENTORY>                                  49,039,090
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                             88,331,581
 <PP&E>                                      388,484,556
 <DEPRECIATION>                              178,717,249
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                              309,003,979
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        43,938,476
 <BONDS>                                      68,839,360
 <COMMON>                                     58,678,056
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
 <PREFERRED>                                           0
 <OTHER-SE>                                   98,878,258
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                309,003,979
 <SALES>                                     163,510,688
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                            163,510,688
 <CGS>                                       120,469,188
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                               135,216,116
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (137,472)
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            1,926,145
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                              26,506,211
 <INCOME-TAX>                                  10350,000
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                          16,156,211
 <DISCONTINUED>                                        0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
 <CHANGES>                                             0
 <NET-INCOME>                                 16,156,211
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                                      1.06
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        

</TABLE>
# DLA Installation Management Richmond goes platinum for 12th year in a row

/ Published Oct. 13, 2022
RICHMOND, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond received the Platinum Award from Chesterfield County, Virginia, Oct. 5 for achieving 100% compliance with the county’s industrial wastewater regulations on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia.

Chesterfield County has two compliance awards: gold and platinum. Gold is for one year of 100% compliance, and platinum is for at least five consecutive years of 100% compliance. This makes the 12th consecutive year Defense Supply Center Richmond has won the award.

At least once a year, county officials conduct physical inspections of numerous water-related operations that take place on the installation. These include industrial battery washing stations, numerous oil-water separators, and various industrial vehicle wash racks.

Jimmy Parrish, chief of the Environmental Division for the installation said winning this award for so many consecutive years is the epitome of great teamwork.

“Doing things the right way environmentally is just how the employees of DLA Installation Management Richmond go about doing business in support of the warfighter,” he said.

Adam Berry, an environmental engineer within the Environmental Division, is responsible for managing the wastewater program on DSCR.

“Ensuring our wastewater is as clean as possible reduces the workload on the county and saves resources for the community,” Berry said.
# DLA Troop Support expedites urgent order for armored bulldozers 

/ Published Feb. 26, 2019

Contract specialists at Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support are meeting a customers’ urgent need for 16 armored bulldozers in four months rather than the year it would normally take.

The Army’s Tank-automotive and Armaments Command requested the bulldozers for a Foreign Military Sales Program customer who needs the dozers to support the fight against Islamic militants in Syria. They will be delivered incrementally March through mid-May. 

DLA Troop Support’s Heavy Equipment Procurement Program team received the request Jan. 23. The order arrived with no indication of urgency, but on Jan. 29, HEPP employees became aware the dozers were needed immediately. Robert Spadaro, HEPP supervisor and program manager, got vendors on the phone Jan. 30. 

“Normally, we solicit customer requirements for about two weeks. We didn’t want to wait that long in this case, so we streamlined the process but made sure we still maintained competition and followed our normal playbook,” he said. 

Vendors juggled their schedules to provide proposals Jan. 31 and an award was made later that day. Details on what the dozers will be used for are not available, but Spadaro’s work, along with that of Susanne McHale, chief of the Move and Store Division in DLA Troop Support’s Directorate of Construction and Equipment, and Contracting Officer Michelle Diak, drew praise from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Defense Exports and Cooperation.

“We’re proud to support the fight and help U.S. efforts in Iraq and Syria,” McHale said.

The bulldozers have been used by foreign troops in the Middle East as a mobile barricade when advancing in combat and to clear obstacles and debris. They are equipped with armored plating reinforcements to help protect against explosives and shield drivers.

A strong relationship with heavy equipment suppliers who already source items for U.S. military customers made quick turnaround of the $14 million order possible, McHale added.

“The five-year, long-term contracts we have in place with major vendors helps us build a strong alliance so vendors take our priorities seriously,” she said.

The Heavy Equipment Procurement Program includes about 70 contracts through which DLA Troop Support purchases commercial heavy equipment like cranes, trailers, and fire and emergency vehicles.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donato Vasquez, Appellant.

[630 NYS2d 569]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.), rendered September 21, 1992, convicting him of rape in the second degree (two counts), rape in the third degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant was denied his fundamental right to be present during all material stages of his trial when a prospective juror was questioned at a sidebar conference, in the presence of both counsel, about information that he had acquired about the case from the newspapers and/or friends *(see, People v Sloan, 79*NY2d 386; *People v McMichael,*216 AD2d 588). Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the defendant’s presence at the sidebar conference would have been of no benefit *(see, People v Sloan, supra,*at 392-393), even though, immediately after his off-the-record interview, the juror was discharged by the court. Accordingly, the defendant’s judg*767ment of conviction is reversed and a new trial is ordered *(see, People v Antommarchi,*80 NY2d 247; *People v Sloan, supra).*

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
2017-0211.

#### State v. Yuschak.

Medina App. No. 15CA0055-M, 2016-Ohio-8507. Appellant’s motion to strike denied.
No. 09-1377.

#### Ohio, Petitioner v. Antwaun Smith.

562 U.S. 947, 131 S. Ct. 102,

178 L. Ed. 2d 242,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7655.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.

Same case below, 124 Ohio St. 3d 163, 920 N.E.2d 949.
Memorandum 

Subject: 

From: 

To: 

August 6, 2014 

August 5, 2014 Meeting Between Anadarko and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) 

/'() ~ 

Outreach 

Chris Stoneman, 

and Information 

Policy Advisor 

Division, 

l-/frwL ~ 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 

Docket- EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151 

This memorandum to docket provides a brief summary of the main discussion points 

made at the subject meeting during the comment period for the Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulenpking (ANPR): "Managing Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas 

Production in Indian Country." (79 Federal Register 32502, June 5, 2104) 

Meeting details: 

When: August 5, 20 14; 10:00- 11 :00 a.m. ET 

Where: EPA Offices, RTP, NC 

Participants: Greg Green, EPA, OAQPS 

Chebryll Edwards, EPA, OAQPS 

Laura McKelvey, EPA, OAQPS 

Chris Stoneman, EPA, OAQPS 

Bruce Moore, EPA, OAQPS 

Greg Nizich, EPA, OAQPS 

Judy Ostendorf, EPA, Region 8 

Scott Jackson, EPA, Region 8 

Monica Morales, EPA, Region 8 

Claudia Smith, EPA, Region 8 

Cindy Beeler, EPA, Region 8 

Deirdre Rothery, EPA, Region 8 

Tim Russ, EPA, Region 8 

Chad Schlichtemeier, Anadarko 

Jill Cooper, Anadarko 

Julia Jones, Anadarko 

Katherine Doolittle, Anadarko 

Angela Zivkovich, Anadarko 

The EPA met with Anadarko at the company's request. During the meeting, EPA 

provided an overview of several key aspects of the minor source general permit program 

for Indian country and the recently-issued ANPR for New Source review (NSR) minor 

source oil and natural gas activity in Indian country. During the course of the meeting the 

Anadarko raised several questions that were discussed: 
1) Overarching Tribal Minor NSR Rulemaking Questions 

a. Potential for Region specific efforts under the program 

b. Implementation approaches for Tribal Minor NSR 

2) Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment and Nonattainment 

and the Effect on Tribal Minor NSR 

a. Cause and Contribute 

b. Interim Period 

c. Credit for reducing emissions from existing sources 

d. Federally enforceable emission reductions from non-road engines 

The EPA answered basic questions about the content ofthe ANPR and offered to be 

available for further discussions and/or exchanges of technical information. 

This memorandum will be filed in the docket for the proposed rule and will be available 

for public review.
No. 10-66.

#### Connie Watkins, Petitioner v. Arkansas.

562 U.S. 892, 131 S. Ct. 275,

178 L. Ed. 2d 140,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6383.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arkansas denied.

Same case below, 2010 Ark. App. 85, 377 S.W.3d 286.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00341-CR

PATRICK BIRCH CALVERT,Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 43rd District 

Court

of Parker County (CR16-0801)

September 3, 2020

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of t he trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth_________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
#### Magazines Unlimited et al., Appellants, v Carlos Benaim et al., Respondents.

[767 NYS2d 604]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered August 26, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to modify/clarify a prior order, same court and Justice, entered March 15, 2002, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it clarified that it was its intention in its prior grant of partial summary judgment to defendant landlords to preclude plaintiff from asserting any claim for damages for personal property left by him in his former apartment and disposed of by defendants subsequent to the City Marshal’s execution of the warrant of eviction on November 22, 1994. This limitation was properly premised upon paragraph 9 (B) of the apartment lease, which expressly provided that upon the lease’s termination the owner would have the option of discarding personal property left in the apartment. Plaintiffs remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felipe Carmona, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 880]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered April 24, 2013, convicting defendant, upon *671his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to a term of 3V2 years, followed by 3 years of postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record *(see People v. Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Testimony credited by the court established that an officer observed defendant engaging in what reasonably appeared to be a drug transaction, and that as the officer approached, he detected the odor of PCP *(see People v Darby,*263 AD2d 112, 114 [1st Dept 2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 795 [2000]). The officer sufficiently explained his ability to smell the PCP at a distance, and defendant’s arguments to the contrary rest on speculation and factual assertions unsupported by the record.

We perceive no basis for reducing the term of postrelease supervision.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.
No. 09-10097.

#### Edward Hill, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 961, 131 S. Ct. 455,

178 L. Ed. 2d 286,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8032.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 10.1

November 20, 2003

William M. Smith
Reink Corp.
2085 Hurontario St.
Mississauga, Ontario
L5A 4G1\

         RE:      Proposed Reorganization

Dear Mr. Smith:

         This letter agreement serves as the agreement between Reink Corp. (the
"Company") and Jackson Steinem, Inc. ("JSI") regarding compensation for
non-legal, consulting services provided by JSI to the Company, including but not
limited to services in connection with the Company's proposed reorganization
transaction (the "Reorganization"). Upon execution of this agreement, the
Company shall duly issue and deliver, or cause to deliver, immediately to JSI
50,000 free trading shares of the Company's common stock at a value of $.10 per
share (the "Shares"). In the event the Company must register the Shares on Form
S-8, then the parties agree that the shares will be issued to Adam S.
Gottbetter.

         The Company, under a separate agreement ("Retainer Agreement"), has
retained the legal services of Gottbetter & Partners, LLP ("G&P") as its
corporate and securities counsel. The Company and JSI agree that this agreement
and the consideration being paid hereunder are not in exchange for legal
services, and no legal services have been or will be provided to the Company by
JSI. In addition, JSI has not been asked to perform, is not required to perform,
and has not performed any due diligence with respect to the above-referenced
transactions, nor has it advised or counseled the Company as to the financial
viability or likelihood of success of the above-referenced transaction.

         G&P and JSI consist of the same principal owners. The Retainer
Agreement includes disclosures, waivers and consents regarding the conflict of
interest raised by G&P's legal representation of the Company and JSI's
relationship with the Company hereunder, which are specifically incorporated
herein by reference.

         The Company acknowledges that the value of JSI's shares could have a
substantially higher value than the value of the services provided by JSI. This
Agreement is to be governed by New York law. It may be modified only in writing
signed by JSI and the Company.


                                       9
<PAGE>

We look forward to working with you in developing the Company's business.

Sincerely,


/s/ Adam S. Gottbetter
President

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

Reink Corp.


By: /s/ William Smith
   ---------------------
Name: William Smith
      ------------------
Title: CFO
      ------------------

                                       10
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15019]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX-95-1-7379b; FRL-6104-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Texas; Removal 
of Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Systems Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to approve a revision to Texas Natural 
Resource Conservation Commission Regulation V (30 TAC Chapter 115) 
which removes regulations concerning Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning 
Systems from the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the 
Governor of Texas on November 12, 1997. In the Rules and Regulations 
section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP 
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no 
adverse comments. The rationale for the approval is set forth in the 
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to 
this proposed rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to 
this rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will 
be withdrawn and all public comments received during the 30-day comment 
period set forth below will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting on 
this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
July 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. 
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at the EPA Region 6 
office listed below. Copies of documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should 
make an appointment with the appropriate office at least two working 
days in advance.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air Quality, 
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kenneth Boyce of the EPA Region 6 
Air Planning Section at (214) 665-7259 at the address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct 
final rule which is published in the Rules and Regulations section of 
this Federal Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 12, 1998.
Jerry Clifford,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 98-15019 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
# WMS development nears the finish line

/ Published Nov. 19, 2022
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
As 2022 comes to an end, the Defense Logistics Agency is preparing to roll out a new operating standard across the agency.

Disposition Services sites will begin using the Warehouse Management System in early 2023 and the first test of the system is currently taking place at the Disposition Services headquarters.

Members of Disposition Services from around the world arrived at the Training and Operations Simulation Center in Battle Creek, Michigan, to participate in the first test run of WMS

“We’re deploying WMS in a live environment at the TOSC and we’re going to be able to test it and make sure it operates in a controlled environment,” said Gerry Charlton, the WMS program manager as he discussed the simulated field site set up to receive property. “We’re really going to truly push [the system] to find any more additional defects.”

Disposition Services crafted this test run to determine what works properly and what causes negative issues. Using the data collected from this weeklong TOSC operation, the agency can determine the next steps necessary as the development of this system nears completion.

“We scripted 107-line items for receipt for the week,” said Mike Rogers, a WMS team lead. “These items will give us the test data that we need to make sure the system functions in all the ways that we need it to function. It gives us a chance to identify any problems and try to get them resolved as soon as possible.”

Those working to identify potential problems within the system are from sites across the worldwide enterprise as the agency enters into the last few months of testing.

“We’re taking a true ‘agency approach’ to get more people involved and cover the workload,” said Rogers. “We brought people in representing different areas of the field. These people have a huge amount of expertise, and they know what this project needs.”

Disposition Services San Antonio is the first site scheduled to put WMS online in early 2023. Through the next few months Charlton and the rest of the team testing WMS are working towards creating a final product that is user friendly with very few deficiencies within the software.

“We want to look at how we can optimize [the ways] we receive property,” said Charlton. "Develop those [standard operating procedures] so that when we get to San Antonio, we develop quality training and quality SOPs with software that is stable.”

WMS will begin rolling out to individual Disposition Services and Distribution sites over the next three years with the final site currently scheduled to go live in September of 2025.
164 A.3d 408

#### HUI LIN WEI AND JODY HE, PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. CAI FENG CHEN, ZHI XIONG LIAN, MASSAGE 130 THERAPY STORE, AND ZHI H. LIAN, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND CAI FENG CHEN AND ZHI XIONG LIAN’S OTHER BUSINESS OR STORE, DEFENDANT.

March 23, 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, with costs.