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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          72,980
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,676
<ALLOWANCES>                                       293
<INVENTORY>                                      2,446
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,063
<PP&E>                                           4,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,512
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,640
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,696
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,345
<SALES>                                          8,130
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,130
<CGS>                                            1,875
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,875
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    19
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     51
<INCOME-TAX>                                        21
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        30
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
Exhibit 3.1(b)
                                                                  --------------

                            CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
                                       OF
                            DOUBLE EAGLE PETROLEUM CO.

     Double Eagle Petroleum Co., a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Maryland (the
"Corporation"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT:

     1. The name of the Corporation is Double Eagle Petroleum Co.

     2. The Articles Of Incorporation were filed with the State Of Maryland
Department Of Assessment And Taxation on January 23, 2001, and that said
Articles Of Incorporation require correction as permitted by Section 1-207 of
the General Corporation Law of the State Of Maryland.

     3. Paragraph (a) of Article Fourth of the Articles Of Incorporation filed
with the State Of Maryland Department Of Corrections on January 23, 2001
incorrectly reads as follows:

          "FOURTH. (a) The aggregate number of shares which the corporation
          shall authority to issue is 10,000,000, each share to have a par value
          of $.01."

     4. Paragraph (a) of Article Fourth of the Articles Of Incorporation is
hereby corrected to read as follows:

          "FOURTH. (a) The aggregate number of shares which the corporation
          shall have the authority to issue is 10,000,000, each share to have a
          par value of $.10."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate Of
Correction to be signed by Francis B. Barron, its Incorporator, this 14th day of
February, 2001.


                                            By:  /s/  Francis B. Barron
                                               --------------------------------
                                                      Francis B. Barron,
                                                      Incorporator

STATE OF COLORADO          )
                           )  ss.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER  )

     BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, personally appeared Francis B. Barron,
known to me to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing
Certificate Of Correction, and he acknowledged that he subscribed the said
instrument for the uses and purposes set forth therein. The subscriber is
personally known to me.

<PAGE>


     WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid
this 14th day of February 2001.


[Seal]                                      /s/  Mary F. Hope
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Mary F. Hope
                                                 Notary Public

                                            My Commission Expires:   2/29/04
                                                                  -------------

                                    * * * * *
No. 10-127.

#### Irandokht Bahrami, Petitioner v. Mohammad Ali Saadat Ketabchi.

562 U.S. 952, 131 S. Ct. 305,

178 L. Ed. 2d 250,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7765,

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, 365 Fed. Appx. 266.
No. 10-369.

#### Steve Baldwin, et al., Petitioners v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.

562 U.S. 1037, 131 S. Ct. 573,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8725.

178 L. Ed. 2d 428,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification of PrincipalExecutive Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I,Joseph Loggia, certify that:

(1)          I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q ofAdvanstar, Inc. (“the registrant”);

(2)          Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

(3)          Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)          The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         [Reserved]

(c)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;

(5)          The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2006
|        | By:    | /s/ Joseph Loggia       |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Joseph Loggia           |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 

PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 

711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can ca/1877-833-6341 

August 5, 2014 

Re: 60-Day Consultation on Proposed Revision to BART Order for BP Cherry Point Refinery 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

You are receiving this as the representative of a Federal Land Manager or a neighboring state 

that has consulted with Ecology on Washington's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

(RH-SIP). Ecology is proposing a revision to the BART Order issued to the BP Cherry Point 

Refinery for inclusion in the RH-SIP. This letter constitutes the start of the mandatory 60-day 

consultation period with the Federal Land Managers. 

On May 5, 2014, BP Cherry Point Refinery requested specific revisions to the emission 

limitations for two subject to BART emission units and additional minor changes. Ecology has 

reviewed the request and has developed a support document discussing the request and our 

proposed action to address the request. The net effect of the emission changes is a decrease of 

10.4 tons ofNOx per year. 

Ecology is proposing to revise the Order included in the RH-SIP in the following ways: 

• Allow an increase in the NOx emissions from one subject to BART process heater. 

• Offset that increase by a decrease in the emissions in another subject to BART process 

heater. 

• Incorporate a new condition addressing BART emission limitations when a specific 

subject to BART emission unit is decommissioned. 

• Incorporate a new condition to allow for updating of monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in the BART Order by regulatory order. 

The revised Order will be submitted to EPA as an amendment to the Washington RH-SIP. Any 

comments or concerns expressed by you on behalf of your agency will be included in the 

documents related adoption of the proposed revision into the SIP. 

After this consultation is complete, we will hold a public comment period and hearing on both 

the revision to the BART Order and its submission to EPA for inclusion in the Washington RHSIP. 
Ladies and Gentlemen 

August 5, 2014 

Page2 

If you have any questions on this proposal, please feel free to contact Alan Newman at 

(360) 407-6810 or alan.newman@ecy.wa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Julie Oliver 

Planning and Development Section Manager 

Air Quality Program 

Enclosures: Proposed BART Order, Revision 2 

Technical Support Document for Revision 2 

cc: Brett Anderson, USFS 

Steve Body, EPA Region 10 

Pat Brewer, NPS 

Anya Caudill, Ecology 

Stu Clark, Ecology 

Tonnie Cummings, NPS 

Mike Edwards, Idaho DEQ 

Brian Finneran, Oregon DEQ 

Rick Graw, USFS 

Jeff Johnston, Ecology 

Alan Newman, Ecology 

Janice Peterson, USFS
# Anniston’s commander recognized for outstanding achievements during tenure

/ Published May 31, 2016
ANNISTON, Alabama, 
Army Lt. Col. Hattie Richardson has been awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal for her achievements while serving as commander of Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Anniston, Ala.  During her tenure, her leadership resulted in the organization performing well above the DLA standards in quality, performance, accountability, and safety.

Richardson coordinated the inventorying, processing, and shipment of more than 500,000 small arms, vehicles and artillery, and major end items to more than 60 foreign military sales countries and customers around the globe.  

Under her leadership, the distribution center launched a major rack replacement optimization project, resulting in almost 5,000 square feet of additional storage space for new and existing business.  The project also included a realignment of 15 warehouses, which moved fast-moving material close to shipping activity.  

As part of the Army’s M4 and M4A1 conversion, Richardson’s team processed and repacked more than 9,000 weapons.  The team coordinated the shipment of the M4s to the Anniston Army Depot Small Arms Maintenance shop.

From October 2014 to January 2015, Richardson led her team to complete a Total Package Fielding for the Korean Theater of Operations, consisting of more than 16,000 weapons to pure fleet units.  The TPF required the distribution center have the material packed and ready for shipment within 30 days to meet the fielding plan, while simultaneously executing a Foreign Military Sales mission of approximately 24,000 weapons for shipment during the same time period.  

In the course of two weeks, the distribution center processed the largest amount of weapons in their history, while continuing normal operations of nearly 300 local and off-depot requirements.

In October 2015, Richardson successfully planned and executed the first-ever 100 percent wall-to-wall inventory of all serialized and non-serialized weapons located in the small arms facility at the distribution center.  This mission included the mobilization of more than 115 Army, Navy, and Air Force reservists, and 11 DLA Distribution personnel to complete the bare-metal and dual serial number verification of more than one million small arms and small arms parts in 150 days.

“Lt. Col. Richardson’s actions enabled the organization to greatly improve productivity and accountability, setting the path of relevancy which has secured a future for its employees,” said Perry Knight, DLA Distribution chief integration officer.
No. 10-5578.

#### Pedro Velasquez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 929, 131 S. Ct. 321,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7249.

178 L. Ed. 2d 209,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 632.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

[TYPE]EX-27
<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                          0001064526
<NAME>                         GROVE WORLDWIDE LLC
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Oct-2-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Oct-4-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Apr-3-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             19,499
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     118,033
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                       218,901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  367,271
<PP&E>                                            217,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    877,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             204,762
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                        116,380
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      877,707
<SALES>                                           350,369
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  350,369
<CGS>                                             284,895
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     284,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   63,049
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 20,738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (15,974)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        2,821
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (18,795)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (18,795)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Harvey Marcelin, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 706]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from harassment and making false statements and a penalty was imposed. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding contending, inter alia, that various procedural errors deprived him of a fair hearing. We cannot agree. Petitioner’s assertion that he was never issued a copy of the rule book, “Standards of Inmate Behavior,” is without merit, and our review of the hearing transcript fails to support petitioner’s allegation that the Hearing Officer was biased against him or that his decision resulted from any alleged bias *(see Matter of Green v Ricks,*304 AD2d 1010, 1011 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 509 [2003]). Petitioner’s remaining claims have been examined and found to be equally unpersuasive.*

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

*

 We note that petitioner has abandoned his substantial evidence argument on this appeal; nonetheless, the proceeding was properly transferred to this Court as the petition and answer raised the issue before Supreme Court *(see Matter of Di Salvo v Selsky,*260 AD2d 874 [1999]).
# Leadership summit continues in HDIFC with successes and challenges on the agenda

/ Published Oct. 27, 2021
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Day two of the annual Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Strategic Leadership Summit took place in the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center. Disposition Services leaders from stateside and overseas locations continued dialogue of multiple issues affecting the agency. Among the topics discussed on this second day of briefings were regional successes and challenges, budget execution, and facility status updates.

Each region has its own specific set of circumstances and goals but one consistent theme throughout the day was “safety first”. This sentiment was echoed by each speaker regarding their respective region as safety of the workforce is the utmost priority for everyone within Disposition Services.                Jessie Parisano, the director of Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Europe & Africa, addresses the audience during DLA's annual Leadership Summit at the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center on October 26, 2021.                            DLA Disposition Services Leadership Summit Day Two                            Jessie Parisano, the director of Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Europe & Africa, addresses the audience during DLA's annual Leadership Summit at the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center on October 26, 2021.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Disposition ServicesVIRIN: 211026-D-OS362-027

“We prioritize safety,” said Jessie Parisano, the director of DLA Disposition Services Europe & Africa. “We decreased our material handling equipment mishaps by 50% from the previous year and we are going to continue to focus on having zero preventable mishaps.”

Also mentioned was the modernization of facilities across the agency. While improvements such as updating fire suppression systems help to increase the safety of personnel, other updates are made in order to increase productivity and quality of life. Leadership throughout Disposition Services are looking forward to continuing these types of updates for the work force.

“Those kinds of improvements are huge for our employees,” said DLA Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon. “Those are the kind of things we need to do for our employees, because they deserve a better place to work. We’re seldom going to get a beautiful warehouse to start with, but we can take the money that we do have and put it on the right projects to improve that warehouse.”

Army Lt. Col. Juan Talamantes, director of DLA Disposition Services Central, also shared some personal lessons learned as well, saying “I needed to recognize that we were one team and one fight, there to do the job together. And I think we now truly operate in a joint environment, and we are able to rely on each other.”

The Leadership Summit continues for the remainder of the week with DSDs and staff to cover budget implementation and site standardization. The event culminates on Friday, with the awarding of best sites.
# C_2013344EN.01005601.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/56

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2013 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission

(Case T-397/13 R)

(Interim measures - Agriculture - Export refunds - Poultrymeat - Regulation fixing the refunds at zero - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)

2013/C 344/100

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and F. Le Roquais, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for stay of execution of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
#### People v Taylor

4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1738 (Livingston)

denied 3/3/17 (Rivera, J.)
No. D-2512.

#### In the Matter of Disbarment of Nikita V. Mackey.

562 U.S. 999, 131 S. Ct. 556,

178 L. Ed. 2d 411,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8374.

November 1, 2010.

Disbarment entered.

Former order, 562 U.S. 810, 131 S. Ct. 400, 178 L. Ed. 2d 265, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7581.