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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000033015
<NAME> ENSERCH CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   5-MOS                   7-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-05-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             AUG-04-1997
<CASH>                                          11,770                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  506,284                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    114,244                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,055,705                       0
<PP&E>                                       1,200,864                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,669                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,236,784                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          987,644                       0
<BONDS>                                        646,796                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                    175,000                       0
<COMMON>                                             2                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     761,642                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,236,784                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,276,107               1,278,157
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,256,283               1,231,273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (881)                  22,336
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,755                  44,537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,050)                (19,989)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,485)                 (4,612)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,565)                (15,377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0               (224,691)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,565)               (240,068)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
No. 10-6995.

#### Israel Arellano-Arellano, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1051, 131 S. Ct. 616,

178 L. Ed. 2d 448,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8933.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 295.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18357]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-307-000]


Stingray Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

July 6, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 1, 1998, Stingray Pipeline Company 
(Stingray) tendered for filing to be part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 199, to be effective 
August 1, 1998.
    Stingray states that the purpose of the filing is to comply with 
the Commission's Order No. 587-G issued April 16, 1998 in Docket No. 
RM96-1-007.
    Stingray states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its 
customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18357 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-7959.

#### Esteban Rodriguez-Lopez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1192, 131 S. Ct. 1030,

178 L. Ed. 2d 851,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 658.

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 395 Fed. Appx. 112.
Exhibit
      32.2


Form
      10-QSB


Viking
      Systems, Inc.


File
      No.
      000-49636





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Viking Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory M. Decker,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: 
      August 21, 2006











/s/
      Gregory M. Decker


Gregory
      M. Decker


Chief
      Financial Officer
#### *State, Respondent, v. Fitzgerald, Petitioner,*

No. 90717-0.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Nos. 43987-5-II and 45047-0-II, June 17, 2014, 181 Wn. App. 1035. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Esterline Technologies Corporation of our report dated December 30, 2005,
included in the 2005 Annual Report to Shareholders of Esterline Technologies
Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Esterline
Technologies Corporation listed in Item 15(a). This schedule is the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set
forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 333-43843, No. 33-58375, No. 333-62650, No. 333-85440 and Form
S-3 No. 333-117905) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Option Plan, Non-Employee
Directors' Stock Compensation Plan, Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Option Plan,
the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Esterline Technologies Corporation and
the $300,000,000 Shelf Registration Statement of our report dated December 30,
2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein
by reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to
the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Esterline Technologies Corporation for the fiscal year ended October 28, 2005.

                                               Ernst & Young LLP

Seattle, Washington
January 4, 2006
No. 10-598.

#### Richard Kleinhammer, Petitioner v. City of Paso Robles, California, et al.

562 U.S. 1179, 131 S. Ct. 1003,

178 L. Ed. 2d 827,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 813,

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 642.
No. 10-7576.

#### Ernest Miller, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1175, 131 S. Ct. 1015,

178 L. Ed. 2d 822,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 677.

January 18, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
No. 10-8081.

#### Robert V. Trautman, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1207, 131 S. Ct. 1059,

178 L. Ed. 2d 876,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1065.

January 24, 2011.

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

Same case below, 395 Fed. Appx. 141.
# GEN II SOI
# C_2016068EN.01001802.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Virpi Komu, Hanna Ruotsalainen, Ritva Komu v Pekka Komu, Jelena Komu

(Case C-605/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Scope - Exclusive jurisdiction - Article 22(1) - Proceedings concerning rights in rem in immovable property - Concept - Action to terminate, by way of sale, the co-ownership in undivided shares of immovable property))

(2016/C 068/22)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Virpi Komu, Hanna Ruotsalainen, Ritva Komu

Applicants:

Defendants: Pekka Komu, Jelena Komu

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for the termination of co-ownership in undivided shares of immovable property by way of sale, by an appointed agent, falls within the category of proceedings ‘which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Escalade, Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 25, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert J. Keller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Robert J. KellerRobert J. KellerChief Executive OfficerJune 16, 2011
# C_2013313EN.01003102.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/31

---

Action brought on 26 August 2013 — Klaes v OHIM — Klaes Kunststoffe (Klaes)

(Case T-453/13)

2013/C 313/59

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Horst Klaes GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH (Neuenrade, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1206/2012-1) and reject the opposition against the applicant’s Community trade mark application (No 9545096). |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1206/2012-1) and reject the opposition against the applicant’s Community trade mark application (No 9545096).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Klaes’ for goods in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 545 096

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark in blue ‘Klaes’ for services in Class 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: 333 Exemption for Farmspace Systems LLC---Aircraft Request Revision 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

13 August 2015 

Reference Public Document (No. FAA-2015-1554), Farmspace Systems, LLC asks to delete 3 

each Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) aircraft from our 333 Exemption Request. 

The original requests includes 3D Robotics systems: IRIS, Y-6, X-8, SPEKTRE, SOLO and 

AERO. 

We respectfully ask to remove the IRlS SPEKTRE and AERO systerns from the request. 

If you have any questions, please contact me via e-mail or phone. 

Sincerely, 

;);;)/cr~~ DERICK E. SEATON 

VP-Aviation Operations 

Farmspace Systems 

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,779<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,320
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (244)
<INVENTORY>                                     55,307
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         82,139
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,043
<SALES>                                          4,315
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,460
<CGS>                                            2,873
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,974
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    29
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                       613
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                927
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       927
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
<FN>
<F1>Balance includes $814 of restricted cash.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### *State, Respondent, v. Byrd, Petitioner,*

No. 91636-5.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 31540-1-III, March 5, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 1015. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ERIE
FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AND STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS DATED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000033416
<NAME> ERIE FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           628,877
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                     142,095
<MORTGAGE>                                       9,975
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    1,458
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 817,460
<CASH>                                          27,358
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                 464
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          77,588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 954,532
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                734,768
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                152
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   1,305
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            5,623
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,410
<OTHER-SE>                                     166,693
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   954,532
<PREMIUMS>                                      41,686
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             56,213
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               4,333
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     692
<BENEFITS>                                      52,240
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      4,813
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            10,945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,926
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,601
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,325
<EPS-BASIC>                                     2.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.47
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0










</TABLE>
7 ways to reduce the 

stigma of mental illness

B-F2097E (5/22) ©2022 Magellan Health, Inc. 

Sources: Nami.org, psychiatry.org

Millions of people are affected by mental illness each year. Unfortunately, more than half of them 

either delay seeking treatment or do not get help at all due to the stigma associated with mental 

illness. Stigma causes people to feel ashamed, concerned about being treated differently, or to fear 

the loss of their livelihood due to something that is out of their control. 

With compassion and support, people can recover and lead happier, healthier lives. Treatment is available and recovery is 

possible, but overcoming stigma is a critical first step in the process. 

What you can do

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) offers some suggestions about what we can do as individuals to help 

reduce the stigma of mental illness:

1 Talk openly about mental 

health—and discuss it no 

differently than physical 

health.

2 Show compassion for those 

with mental illness.

3 Be conscious of language—

remind people that words 

matter.

4 Educate yourself and others—

respond to misperceptions 

or negative comments by 

sharing facts and experiences.

5 Encourage equality between 

physical and mental illness—

draw comparisons to how 

they would treat someone 

with cancer or diabetes.

6 Be honest about treatment—

normalize mental health 

treatment, just like other 

healthcare treatment.

7 Let the media know when 

they are presenting stories 

of mental illness in a 

stigmatizing way.

Help is available. If you or someone in your household is struggling, please contact your program for free,

confidential resources. Visit MagellanAscend.com or call 1-866-580-9046 (TTY 711).