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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,767
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,659
<ALLOWANCES>                                       484
<INVENTORY>                                     22,989
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,793
<PP&E>                                          36,654
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,814
<BONDS>                                          3,424
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           383
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,091
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,301
<SALES>                                        111,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,720
<CGS>                                           83,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,914
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  92
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,097
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (215)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,723
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,723
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.75
        


</TABLE>
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

October 7, 2014

Mr. Robert Cavalier

15973 SW Westminster Dr. Tigard, OR 97224-1397

Dear Mr. Cavalier:

This is in response to yo ur letter dated August 1, 2014, posted to the public docket (No. FAA-2014-0611) petitioning th e Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate rulemaking to amend part § 91.1045 of Title 14 C ode of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). In your petition, you request a new regulation/rule to require all small, private airplanes to install and periodically test a loud emerge ncy warning blast audible by people on the ground in the direct flight path of the airplane.

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA must use the following criteria when making a

decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 3) The resources we have availabl e to address these issues.

Each year, the FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on i ssues that are crucial to the safety of the aviation community and the trav eling public to ensure the FAA delivers the most value to the aviation system.

After reviewing your request based on the curr ent priorities for the FAA and the guidelines found in § 11.73, we determined the issue you rais ed does not meet the criteria to pursue rulemaking at this time. However, your co mments and arguments for the proposed rule change in your petition will be placed in a database, which we will examine when we consider future rulemaking.

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find out and track it through one of the two following websites:2

 For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) website ( http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-onsignificant-rulemakings ).

 For non-significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semiannual regulatory agenda, through the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Re gulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified Agenda website ( http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain ).

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu Director, Office of Rulemaking
# C_2013171EN.01003201.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/32

---

Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Imax/OHIM — Himax Technologies (IMAX)

(Case T-198/13)

2013/C 171/60

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Imax Corporation (Mississauga, Canada) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer, and K. Hughes, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Himax Technologies, Inc. (Tainan County, Taiwan)

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 OHIM’s Fifth Board of Appeal’s decision of 23 January 2013 in Case R 740/2012-5; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul OHIM’s Fifth Board of Appeal’s decision of 23 January 2013 in Case R 740/2012-5; and

| — | Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if the other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes, the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if the other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes, the intervener.

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 ‘IMAX’ for goods in classes 9, 41 and 45 — Community trade mark registration No 9 392 556

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registrations No 4 411 658 and No 4 411 641 of the figurative mark ‘Himax’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

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

Pleas in law:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          68,294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,599
<ALLOWANCES>                                       670
<INVENTORY>                                        812
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,631
<PP&E>                                           1,839
<DEPRECIATION>                                     537
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,003
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,325
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,003
<SALES>                                         12,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,514
<CGS>                                            3,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,730
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,292
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,438
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,438
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35


</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2842 

To prohibit any limitation on the entry of a Member of Congress to any 

facility for the detention of aliens, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2019 

Mr. CROW (for himself, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, and 

Ms. DELAURO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit any limitation on the entry of a Member of 

Congress to any facility for the detention of aliens, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Oversight of 

5 Detention Centers Act of 2019’’ or as the ‘‘POD Act of 

6 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2842 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF DETENTION FA2 CILITIES. 

3 (a) PROHIBITION ON LIMITATIONS ON OVERSIGHT

4 OF DETENTION FACILITIES.—Chapter 4 of title II of the 

5 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. et seq.) is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 244A. PROHIBITION ON LIMITATIONS ON OVERSIGHT 

8 OF DETENTION FACILITIES. 

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A Member of Congress may not 

10 be prevented from entering by not later than 48 hours 

11 after making a request to do so, for the purpose of con12 ducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the De13 partment of Homeland Security (including any facility op14 erated by a private contractor with the Department) used 

15 to detain or otherwise house aliens, or nor may any tem16 porary modification be made at any such facility that in 

17 any way alters what is observed by a visiting Member of 

18 Congress, compared to what would be observed in the ab19 sence of such modification. 

20 ‘‘(b) FACILITIES HOUSING ALIEN MINORS.—A Mem21 ber of Congress may not be prevented from entering by 

22 not later than 48 hours after making a request to do so, 

23 for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility oper24 ated by or for the Department of Homeland Security or 

25 the Department of Health and Human Services (including 

26 any facility operated by a private contractor with either 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2842 IH

1 Department) used to detain or otherwise house alien mi2 nors, or to make any temporary modification at any such 

3 facility that in any way alters what is observed by a vis4 iting Member of Congress, compared to what would be ob5 served in the absence of such modification.’’. 

6 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

7 for such Act is amended by inserting after the item relat8 ing to section 244 the following: 

‘‘244A. Prohibition on limitations on oversight of detention facilities.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# Support goes on as Army divestiture continues

/ Published Aug. 18, 2016
Ft. Hood, Texas, 

Defense Logistics Agency employees at Ft. Hood, Texas, demonstrated the Agency’s ongoing support for Army divestiture for two of the service’s senior logistics personnel recently.

The Aug. 2 visit allowed Peter Bechtel and Col. Chris Mohan from the Army’s office of Supply Policy and Programs to observe DLA in action. According to Joe Arnold, DLA Disposition Services’ Mid-America regional director, Bechtel said DLA Disposition Services and Distribution personnel were playing a huge and critical part in the Army's ability to turn in property and receive immediate relief of accountability. 

“Bechtel indicated our process will be captured in the impending Frago III,” Arnold said. He then explained that a fragmentary order, or "FRAGO," is a change to an operations order that does not require a wholesale change and determines timely changes to an already existing order. Arnold stressed that the important point is that a fragmentary  order is issued based on the basic operations order and is not a “stand alone” directive. 

“Bechtel concluded by thanking all on site for a job well done and asked that our lessons learned be share across the enterprise,” Arnold said.

Arnold also reported that Ft. Hood numbers picked up during the week of Aug. 1 as 6 light-medium tactical vehicle loads of property were received. 

“The team continues to work well with the Army to come up with more efficient ways to service the customers,” Arnold said.

 Army officials are depending on the Defense Logistics Agency’s disposal and distribution experts to help remove more than 1.2 million pieces of excess equipment from unit inventories in the next two to three years.

The effort, known as “All Army Divestiture,” is expected to free soldiers from costly, time-consuming maintenance on unneeded items as the service reduces its force structure.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2848 

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to strengthen parity in mental health and substance use disorder benefits, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2019 

Mr. NORCROSS (for himself, Mr. COURTNEY, and Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

of 1974 to strengthen parity in mental health and substance use disorder benefits, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Parity Enforcement 

5 Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2848 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZING ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY FOR 

2 MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE DIS3 ORDER BENEFITS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 502(c)(10)(A) of the Em5 ployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 

6 U.S.C. 1132(c)(10)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘for any 

7 failure’’ and all that follows through ‘‘in connection with 

8 the plan’’ and inserting ‘‘for any failure by such sponsor 

9 or issuer, in connection with the plan— 

10 ‘‘(i) to meet the requirements of sub11 section (a)(1)(F), (b)(3), (c), or (d) of sec12 tion 702 or section 701 or 702(b)(1) with 

13 respect to genetic information; or 

14 ‘‘(ii) to meet the requirements of sub15 section (a) of section 712 with respect to 

16 parity in mental health and substance use 

17 disorder benefits.’’. 

18 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

19 Section 502 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1132) is amended— 

20 (1) in subsection (a)(6), by striking ‘‘or (9)’’ 

21 and inserting ‘‘(9), or (10)’’; 

22 (2) in subsection (b)(3)— 

23 (A) by striking ‘‘subsections (c)(9) and 

24 (a)(6)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (c)(9), 

25 (c)(10), and (a)(6)’’; 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2848 IH

1 (B) by striking ‘‘under subsection (c)(9)’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘under subsections (c)(9) and 

3 (c)(10)’’; and 

4 (C) by striking ‘‘706(a)(1)’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘733(a)(1)’’; and 

6 (3) in subsection (c)(10) in the heading, by 

7 striking ‘‘use of genetic information’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘use of genetic information and parity in mental 

9 health and substance use disorder benefits’’. 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to group health 

12 plans for plan years beginning after the date that is 1 

13 year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2



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 Magma Design
Automation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory C. Walker, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Gregory C. WalkerGregory C. Walker Senior Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer November 14, 2003




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 10-180.

#### Cook County, Illinois, Petitioner v. Marlita Thomas.

562 U.S. 1061, 131 S. Ct. 643,

178 L. Ed. 2d 478,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9387.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 604 F.3d 293.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35945-35946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17499]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act

    Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on June 8, 
1998, a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Ford Motor Company, 
Civil Action No. 98-01432(RCL), was lodged with the United States 
District Court for the District of Columbia.
    The United States has asserted, in a civil complaint under the 
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq., that certain 1997 Econoline 
vans had defeat devices or otherwise violated the reporting 
requirements of Section 203 of the Clean Air Act. In addition, the 
United States asserted that 1.7 million Escorts from model years 1991 
through 1995 violated the reporting requirements of Section 203 of the 
Clean Air Act.
    Under the proposed Consent Decree, Ford has agreed to recall the 
1997 Econolines and deactivate the defeat device. Ford also agreed to 
offset the excess NO<INF>X</INF> emitted as a result of these 
violations by purchasing and retiring 2,500 tons of NO<INF>X</INF> 
credits. Finally, Ford will pay a civil penalty of $2.5 million 
dollars, and will implement Supplemental Environmental Projects valued 
at $1.5 million in the form of alternative fuel vehicles and fueling 
stations, which Ford will provide to at least two airports, at no cost 
to the airport facilities, for use in transporting passengers from off-
site parking lots to the terminals.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent 
Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General 
of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of 
Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United States v. 
Ford Motor Company, Civil Action No. 98-01432(RCL), D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-
2195.
    The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United 
States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Judiciary Center Bldg., 
555 Fourth St., NW., Washington, DC 20001; at the Environmental 
Protection Agency Library, Reference Desk, Room 2904, 401 M Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20460; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G 
Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, 202-624-0892. A copy of 
the consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 
20005.

[[Page 35946]]

In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $7.00 (25 
cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree 
Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 98-17499 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
Cada punto 

rojo representa 

una caída 

mortal en la 

construccíon 

durante el año 

2016. 

Sabía que las CAÍDAs son la principal 

causA de MUERTE en la construcción? 

Únase a la campaña! 

www.stopconstructionfalls.com 

PLANIFIQUE.PROPORCIONE.ADIESTRE. 

Fuente: http://stopconstructionfalls.com/fatality-map/fatality-mapping-project/ 

? 

!
No. 10-5688.

#### Joe Luis Guerrero, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 965, 131 S. Ct. 462,

178 L. Ed. 2d 294,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7929.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, denied.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00227

- CV

The State of Texas and Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Attorney General of The State of Texas

v.

Valerie Saxion, Inc. and Valerie Saxion, Individually §

§

§

§ From the 348th District Court

o f Tarrant County (348

- 254931

- 11 )

December 4, 2014

Opinion by Justice McCoy



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered Valerie Saxion’s cross

- appeal in this case and

holds that the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that Saxion’s cross

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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

that there was error in the trial court’s judg ment. It is ordered that the judgment

of the trial court is reversed as to the denial of the State’s plea to the jurisdiction

.

W e render judgment dismissing Saxion’s free exercise and f ederal Religious

Freedom Restoration Act claims, and we remand this c ase to the trial court for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion

.It is further ordered that appellee Valerie Sa xion, Inc. and Valerie Saxion,

i ndividually

, shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COU RT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bob McCoy

__________________ Justice Bob McCoy