alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Sunflower and Plant Biology Research: Fargo, ND
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    ETSARC Research Units
                        ETSARC Home page
                                    Office of the Center Director
                                    Location Support Staff
                                    Animal Metabolism-Agricultural Chemicals Research
                                    Cereal Crops Research
                                    Insect Genetics and Biochemistry Research
                                    Sugarbeet and Potato Research
                                    Sunflower and Plant Biology ResearchSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Fargo, North Dakota Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Center Sunflower and Plant Biology Research





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar    ARS News Articles  USDA-Agricultural Research Service and Weed Science Society of America Collaborate to Present Weed Science Webinar SeriesMar 28, 2022Researchers Discover Rust-resistance Genes in SunflowerNov 21, 2014ARS Sunflower Research Boosted by New State-of-the-Art EquipmentJun 23, 2009U.S. Sunflowers Could "Get a Lift" from Down UnderMay 13, 2008New Sunflower Lines Resist Fungal DiseaseAug 03, 2007


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
  STOCK DIVIDENDS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 
                           AND 1996
                    (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>

<S>                                     <C>             <C> 
                                              1997            1996
                                            ------          ------
                                                 (Unaudited)

Earnings:
Net Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   $ 220,415      $  187,274 
  Add:
    Provision for income taxes . . . .     123,386         110,764 
    Fixed charges. . . . . . . . . . . .   552,473         482,803 
  Less:
    Capitalized interest . . . . . . .      35,101          37,359 
                                           -------         -------
  Earnings as adjusted (A) . . . . . .   $ 861,173      $  743,482 
                                           =======         =======

Preferred dividend requirements. . . .  $   12,466      $   12,576 
Ratio of income before provision
    for income taxes to net income . .        156%            159% 
                                           -------         -------
  Preferred dividend factor on pretax
    basis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      19,447          19,996 
                                           -------         -------
Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense . . . . . . . . . .     477,209         427,282 
  Capitalized interest . . . . . . . .      35,101          37,359 
  Interest factor of rents . . . . . .      40,163          18,162 
                                           -------         -------
  Fixed charges as adjusted (B). . . .     552,473         482,803 
                                           -------         -------
Fixed charges and preferred stock
    dividends (C). . . . . . . . . . .   $ 571,920       $ 502,799 
                                           =======         =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    (A) divided by (B) . . . . . . . .       1.56x           1.54x 
                                             =====           =====


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    and preferred stock dividends
    (A) divided by (C) . . . . . . . .       1.51x           1.48x 
                                             =====           =====
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-40-TLS 

 ) 

JERRY SELL ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 10], filed on September 1, 2015. The Defendant has waived 

objection to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the 

Findings and Recommendation [ECF No. 10] in its entirety and accepts the recommended 

disposition. Subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the 

Information is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on September 18, 2015. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### WHITE, Appellant, v. COLUMBIA NAT. BANK OF BUFFALO, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Charles A. White against the Columbia National Bank of Buffalo.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 10.55
 Alion Science and Technology Corporation  Long-Term Incentive Plan  Award Agreement
  
 Section 1  Award Opportunity
 ParticipantDate of GrantTarget Award AmountPerformance Cycle 1
    
    November 1, 2008 until the date of achievement of
final Performance GoalVesting Date of Award
    
    The date as of which the final Performance Goal is
achievedForm of Award Payment
    
    Lump sum cash payment, with mandatory taxes withheldTime of Award Payment
    
    Within 60 days after the Vesting Date of the Award
 Performance Goals
    
    TargetGoal #1:
    
    The Company is in pro forma compliance with the Original
Maximum Senior Secured Leverage Ratio, as such term is
defined in that certain Credit Agreement dated as of
August 2, 2004, by and among the Company, Credit Suisse
and certain other parties (as amended from time to
time).
 Section 2   Determination of Earned Award
  Page 1 of 4




---



##### 



Section 3   Vesting and Payment of Award
  Section 4   Death or Disability During Employment
  Section 5  Involuntary Termination Without Cause
  Section 6  Involuntary Termination for Cause or Voluntary Termination
  Section 7  Change in Control
  Section 8  Other Provisions
  Page 2 of 4




---



##### 



Section 9  Forfeiture of other Awards
    Page 3 of 4




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 COMPANY:

    

    PARTICIPANT:Alion Science and Technology CorporationA Delaware corporationBy:Name:Title:
    
    
    
    Name:
 Page 4 of 4
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Nater-Vazquez, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 921]

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J), entered June 9, 2010. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*Defendant contends that County Court erred in agreeing with the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders that an upward departure from the presumptive risk level was warranted inasmuch as the court relied upon factors already taken into account by the risk assessment instrument. That contention is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review *(see People v Staples,*37 AD3d 1099 [2007], *lv denied*8 NY3d 813 [2007]). In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit. Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto and Lindley, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 9, 2012

h0306 

# Order

March 9, 2012

142382

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142382 COA: 301149 SAMBATH CHAN, Ottawa CC: 08-033004-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 28, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

M ARKMAN

, J. ( concurring ). I concur in the order denying leave to appeal. In 2008, defendant, a noncitizen, pleaded guilty of breaking an d entering and possession of an explosive device with malicious intent. Subsequently, the United States Supreme
Court held that a criminal de fense attorney must “advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” Padilla v Kentucky , 559 US ___; 130 S Ct 14 73, 1483; 176 L Ed 2d 284 (2010). Later, in June 2010, defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment, alle ging that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The trial court denied th is motion, and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. In order to ob tain relief, defendant mu st establish that he was actually prejudiced by his counsel’s failur e to advise him about the risk of adverse immigration consequences. MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b); Padilla , 130 S Ct at 1483. Even assuming that Padilla applies retroactively to this case, defendant has failed to present any evidence that he was actually prejudiced by his trial coun sel’s failure to advise him concerning the risk of adverse immigration c onsequences. Although defendant filed an affidavit with the trial court, he failed to in clude in the affidavit any averment that he would not have pleaded guilty bu t for the lack of advice abou t possible deportation. In addition, there is no evidence in the record concerning why the Department of Homeland Security is investigating defendant for possibl e deportation. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the trial court erred by denying de fendant’s motion for relief from judgment.
Exhibit 3.5  ROSS MILLER  Secretary of State Document Number 254 North Carson Street, Suite 1 20100832021-19 Carson City, Nevada 89701-4520 Filing Date and Time (775) 684-5708 11/04/2010 9:35 AM Website: www.nvsos.gov Entity Number C29353-2001  Certificate of AmendmentFiled in the office of(PURSUANT TO NRS 78.385 AND 78.390/s/ Ross millerRoss MillerSecretary of StateState of NevadaABOVE SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY  Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation For Nevada Profit Corporations  (Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)  1. Name of Corporation:  Altos Explorations Inc. 2. The articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if available):  Entity number C29353-2001Article Number 1 is hereby amended to:Canadian Tactical Training Academy Inc.  3. The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is:  4. Effective date of filing (optional): (must be no later than 90 days after the certificate is filed)  5. Signature (Required)  /s/ Greg ThompsonSignature of Officer  * If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preferences or any relative or other right given to any class or series of outstanding shares, then the amendment must be approved by the vote. In addition to the affirmative vote otherwise required of the holders of shares representing a majority of the voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless of limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.  IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and submit the proper fees may cause this filing to be rejected.
### SCWC-14-0001356 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. MICHAEL JEAN PANZO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,

and EWA BY GENTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee. (CAAP-14-0001356; CIV. NO. 13-1-0152)

--------------------------------------------------------------- BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. MICHAEL JEAN PANZO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,

and EWA BY GENTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee. (CAAP-15-0000660; CIV. NO. 13-1-0152)

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0001356 26-OCT-2017 12:34 PM

### ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J . )



### Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Michael Jean Panzo’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on September 13, 2017, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 26, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Flow International Corporation,
a Washington corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Stephen R. Light, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Douglas P. Fletcher, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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/ STEPHEN R. LIGHT                            |  | March 29, 2007
|Stephen R. Light Principal Executive Officer    |  |               
|                                                | 
|/s/ DOUGLAS P. FLETCHER                         |  | March 29, 2007
|Douglas P. Fletcher Principal Financial Officer |  |
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-123490, 333-136142, and 333-138639) on Form S-3 and in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-96923, 333-106975, 333-118705, 333-126415, and333-137258) on Form S-8 of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. of our report dated July 28, 2006, except for the 14th paragraph of Note 4 as to which the date is July 16, 2007, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements and the financial statement schedule as of and for the year ended April 30, 2006, whichappears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2007. 

/s/ MCGLADREYAND PULLEN, LLP 

Irvine, California 

July 16, 2007
# C_2008014EN.01002001.xml

| 19.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/20

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4886 — Petroplus/Shell French Refineries)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 14/06)

On 11 January 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4886. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4886. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 02-1237V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

*

COLLEEN BOSTON MADARIAGA *

and JAMES ALLEN, parents and *

guardians of A.A., a minor, *

*

Petitioners, * 

* Filed: March 22, 2016

v. *

* Autism; Decision on Attorneys’

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Fees and Costs

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION (ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,1a Decision issued 

on September 26, 2015. On March 7, 2016, Petitioners filed an Application for Attorneys’ Fees 

and Costs, requesting a total payment of $10,606.55, representing attorneys’ fees and costs of 

$10, 050.80, and $555.75 of costs expended by Petitioners. On March 18, 2016, Respondent 

filed a statement indicating that Respondent has no objection to this request.

I find that this Petition was filed and pursued in good faith and with a reasonable basis. 

Thus, an award for fees and costs is appropriate at this time, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) 

and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amounts seem reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I 

hereby award the following attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and 

(e)(1):

• a lump sum of $10,050.80, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioners 

and Petitioners’ counsel, Ronald C. Homer, on account of services performed by 

counsel’s law firm. 

 

1 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2012). 
• a lump sum of $555.75, in the form of a check payable to Petitioners, 

which represents Petitioners’ own litigation expenses in this case.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of the 

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in 

accordance herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED

 /s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

 George L. Hastings, Jr.

 Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the 

right to seek review.
[No. 38669-7-I.

Division One.

September 29, 1997.]

#### Donnie Swafford, *Appellant,*v. Gary Hedger, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-2-34618-4, Marsha J. Pechman, J., entered May 7, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Agid and Cox, JJ.
# C_2008143EN.01000801.xml

| 10.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5122 — ArcelorMittal/Borusan)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 143/04)

On 3 June 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5122. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5122. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Robert FEATHERSTUN, a/k/a Big Country, a/k/a Mike, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6405.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

Michael Robert Featherstun, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Robert Featherstun appeals the district court’s order denying his Motion to Request Grand Jury Minutes. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Featherstun,*No. 1:05-cr-00021-JCC-3 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 10, 2011, and entered Mar. 11, 2011). We deny Feather-stun’s motion for appointment of counsel and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*