alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 18

Board of Directors
El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Co.
1001 Louisiana
Houston, Texas 77002

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form
10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have read management's justification for the change in the measurement date
used in accounting for pensions and for other post-retirement benefits other
than pensions from December 31 to September 30 reflected in the Company's Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998. Based on our reading of the data and
discussions with Company officials about the business judgment and business 
planning factors relating to the change, we believe management's justification 
to be reasonable. Accordingly, in reliance on management's determination as 
regards elements of business judgment and business planning, we concur that the 
newly adopted accounting principle described above is preferable in the 
Company's circumstances to the method previously applied.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
January 31, 1999
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7592

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MCGALY ALVAREZ ROMERO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-92-

69-L, CA-96-200-L)

Submitted: June 12, 1997 Decided: June 17, 1997

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cloud Hicklen Miller, III, NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES, Atlanta,

Georgia, for Appellant. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Romero, Nos. CR-92-69-L; CA-96-200-L (D.

Md. Sept. 20, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
Alden J. Parker, Admitted Pro Hae Vice 

aparker@fisherphillips.com 

Fisher & Phillips LLP 

1215 K Street, 17th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 769-9905 

Facsimile: (916) 440-0993 

Anne M. Milligan, OSB #111615 

amilligan@fisherphillips.com 

Fisher & Phillips LLP 

111 SW Fifth A venue, Suite 4040 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503) 242-4262 

Facsimile: (503) 242-4263 

Attorneys for Defendants 

SUMMIT FUNDING, INC. 

and DA YID KAMMERER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

DEAN SCHMIDT, Case No. 6:15-cv-00640-TC 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUMMIT FUNDING, INC., a California 

corporation; and DAVID KAMMERER, 

Defendants. 

JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CAUSE OF 

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

Page I JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

FIS! IER & Pl 111.Lll'S LLP 

111 SW Fifth Ave. S1e. 4040 

Ponland, Oregon 97204 

(503) 242-4262 

FPDOCS 32055808. 1 

Case 6:15-cv-00640-TC Document 35 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 2
This action having been brought by Plaintiff, the parties hereby STIPULATE and request 

that the Court order that Plaintiffs Second Cause of Action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 

and without costs or attorney fees to any party. 

Dated: 't I ~1 { {~ 

SIGNED: September 6, 2016 

SIGNED: September 6, 2016 

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 

Isl Alden J. Parker 

Alden J. Parker, admitted pro hac vice 

aparker@fisherphillips.com 

Anne M. Milligan, OSB # 111615 

amilligan@fisherphillips.com 

111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 4040 

Portland, OR 97204 

Of Attorneys for Defendants 

WM. RANDOLPH TURNBOW 

Isl Wm. Randol2h Turnbow 

Wm. Randolph Turnbow, OSB 803910 

randy@steelheadlawyer.com 

2610 Highland Oaks Drive 

Eugene, OR 97405 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Page 2 JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

Frs1 !FR & Pl!IU.ll''i LLP 

111 SW Fifth Ave, S1e 4040 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

(503) 242-4262 

FPDOCS 32055808.1 

Case 6:15-cv-00640-TC Document 35 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 2
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0249 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0249

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Protocol on Mountain Farming attached to the Alpine Convention (COM(2006)0170 - C6-0144/2006 - 2006/0059(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 300 E , 09/12/2006 P. 0089 - 0090 *

P6_TA(2006)0249

Protocol on Mountain Farming attached to the Alpine Convention*

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Protocol on Mountain Farming attached to the Alpine Convention (COM(2006)0170 — C6-0144/2006 — 2006/0059(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0170) [1],

- having regard to Articles 36, 37 and 300(2), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0144/2006),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0199/2006),

1. Approves conclusion of the Protocol;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Principality of Monaco, and the Swiss Confederation.

[1] Not yet published in the OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1892 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1892

    To provide that a person closely related to a judge of a court 
   exercising judicial power under article III of the United States 
 Constitution (other than the Supreme Court) may not be appointed as a 
            judge of the same court, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 31, 1998

    Mr. Kyl introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide that a person closely related to a judge of a court 
   exercising judicial power under article III of the United States 
 Constitution (other than the Supreme Court) may not be appointed as a 
            judge of the same court, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON CLOSELY RELATED PERSONS SERVING AS FEDERAL 
              JUDGES ON THE SAME COURT.

    (a) In General.--Section 458 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)(1)'' before ``No person''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) With respect to the appointment of a judge of a court 
exercising judicial power under article III of the United States 
Constitution (other than the Supreme Court), subsection (b) shall apply 
in lieu of this subsection.
    ``(b)(1) In this subsection, the term--
            ``(A) `same court' means--
                    ``(i) in the case of a district court, the court of 
                a single judicial district; and
                    ``(ii) in the case of a court of appeals, the court 
                of appeals of a single circuit; and
            ``(B) `member'--
                    ``(i) means an active judge or a judge retired in 
                senior status under section 371(b); and
                    ``(ii) shall not include a retired judge, except as 
                described under clause (i).
    ``(2) No person may be appointed to the position of judge of a 
court exercising judicial power under article III of the United States 
Constitution (other than the Supreme Court) who is related by affinity 
or consanguinity within the degree of first cousin to any judge who is 
a member of the same court.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on the date of 
enactment of this Act and shall apply only to any individual whose 
nomination is submitted to the Senate on or after such date.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JEREMIAH THOMASSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DON PALMER and 

ELLEN ROBENBLUM, 

Respondents. 

BROWN, Judge. 

3:14-CV-01340-SU 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and 

Recommendation (#58) on November 21, 2016, in which she 

recommends the Court deny Petitioner Jeremiah Thomasson's 

Petition (#1) for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254, dismiss this matter with prejudice, and decline to issue 

a certificate of appealability. Petitioner filed timely 

Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now 

before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) and Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 

1 - ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01340-SU Document 65 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 2
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate 

Judge's Findings and Reconunendation, the district court must make 

a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's 

report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F. 3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). 

This Court has carefully considered Petitioner's Objections 

and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings 

and Reconunendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent 

portions of the record de nova and does not find any error in the 

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Reconunendation. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings and 

Reconunendation (#58) and, therefore, DENIES the Petition (#1) for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, DISMISSES 

this matter with prejudice, and DECLINES to issue a certificate 

of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 10th day of February, 2017. 

ANN~ United States District Judge 

2 - ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01340-SU Document 65 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: PREMERA BLUE CROSS CUSTOMER

DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No. 2633

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO −1)

On June 16, 2015, the Panel transferred 7 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

District of Oregon for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1407. See _F.Supp.3d_ (J.P.M.L. 2015). Since that time, no additional action(s) have been

transferred to the District of Oregon. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been

assigned to the Honorable Michael H. Simon.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the District of Oregon and assigned to Judge Simon.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the

District of Oregon for the reasons stated in the order of June 16, 2015, and, with the consent of that

court, assigned to the Honorable Michael H. Simon.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the District of Oregon. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed 7

days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel

within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

s/ Eric Oss

Jun 25, 2015

Dated:

1

MARY L. MORAN, Clerk of Court

U.S. District Court of Oregon

Pages Through

Certified to be a true and correct 

copy of original filed in this District

By:

06/25/2015 2
IN RE: PREMERA BLUE CROSS CUSTOMER

DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No. 2633

SCHEDULE CTO−1 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

ALASKA

AK 3 15−00060 Fuerst v. Premera Blue Cross

AK 4 15−00013 Kaihoi v. Premera et al

FLORIDA MIDDLE

FLM 8 15−01139 Dudley v. Premera Blue Cross

WASHINGTON WESTERN

WAW 2 15−00512 Kaplowitz v. Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00516 Underwood v. Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00523 Burkhardt v. Premera Blue Cross et al

WAW 2 15−00539 Webb et al v. Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00546 Devine v. Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00552 Welch v. Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00558 Powers v. Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00588 Olson v. Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00591 Emerson v Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00603 Facchinello v. Premera Blue Cross et al

WAW 2 15−00626 Hardan et al v. Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00632 Christopherson v. Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00637 Prothero v. Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00654 Astengo et al v. Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00658 Lynch v. Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00670 Miller v Premera Blue Cross

WAW 2 15−00709 Eykel v. Premera Blue Cross
EXHIBIT 11.1

META Group, Inc.        EXHIBIT TO QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q        Computation of Net Income Per Common Share

|                                  |                                                                                      | For the three months ended
March 31, |           
|--------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------ | ----------
|
|Net loss                          |                                                                                      | $                                    | (1,353,000
|                                  |                                                                                      |                                      |           
|                                  | Average number of common shares outstanding during the period                        |                                      |           
|                                  | Add common share equivalentsoptions to purchase common shares and contingent shares |                                      |           
|                                  |                                                                                      |                                      |           
|                                  |                                                                                      | Total                                |           
|                                  |                                                                                      |                                      |           
|Amounts per basic common share:   |                                                                                      |                                      |           
|                                  |                                                                                      |                                      |           
|                                  | Net loss                                                                             |                                      | $         
|                                  |                                                                                      |                                      |           
|Amounts per diluted common share: |                                                                                      |                                      |           
|                                  |                                                                                      |                                      |           
|                                  | Net loss                                                                             |                                      | $         
|                                  |                                                                                      |                                      |           

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6708

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY TODD HARRELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-37, CA-97-183-R) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Todd Harrell, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Breeding Peters, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Harrell , Nos. CR-94-37; CA-97-183-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 21, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 160 (Monday, August 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 47161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17939]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permit Modification Received Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permit modification request received and permit 
issued.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a 
notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities 
regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the 
required notice of a requested permit modification and permit issued.

DATES: October 30, 2016-January 31, 2023.
    The permit modification was issued on August 17, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower 
Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-7420; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7e6e4e6d7c2d5caced3d4e7c9d4c189c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="703133310015021d190403301e03165e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Science Foundation (NSF), as 
directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541, 45 
CFR 670), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation 
Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a 
permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of 
certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special 
protection.
    Description of Permit Modification Requested: The Foundation issued 
a permit (ACA 2017-019) to Leidos Innovations Group on October 30, 
2016. The issued permit allows the applicant entry into five Antarctic 
Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) in the Antarctic Peninsula Region. 
Entry into protected areas is necessary to support logistic and 
scientific objectives of the United States Antarctic Program.
    Previous modifications to this permit, dated March 9, 2017, October 
6, 2017, and January 8, 2020, expanded the list of ASPAs that can be 
entered and transited under the permit. Currently the permit holder is 
granted access to 13 ASPAs in the Antarctic Peninsula Region.
    Now, the applicant proposes a modification to his permit to extend 
the expiration date of the permit until January 31, 2023.
    The Environmental Officer has reviewed the modification request and 
has determined that the amendment is not a material change to the 
permit, and it will have a less than a minor or transitory impact.

Erika N. Davis,
Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-17939 Filed 8-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### MOONEY v. DOHN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

January 31, 1896.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1881 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1881

To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to the installation of 
              emergency locator transmitters on aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 30, 1998

 Mr. Lieberman introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to the installation of 
              emergency locator transmitters on aircraft.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Airplane Emergency Locator Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) on December 24, 1996, a plane piloted by Johan Schwartz 
        and Patrick Hayes disappeared near Lebanon, New Hampshire;
            (2) an extensive search was conducted by the States of New 
        Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, Maine, and 
        Massachusetts, in cooperation with the Federal Government, in 
        an unsuccessful effort to locate the plane and any survivors;
            (3) the plane described in paragraph (1) was not required 
        under law to carry an emergency locator transmitter; and
            (4) emergency locator transmitters have been found to be 
        very helpful in locating downed aircraft and saving lives.

SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF REQUIREMENT.

    Section 44712(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended to 
read as follows:
    ``(b) Nonapplication.--Subsection (a) does not apply to aircraft 
when used in--
            ``(1) flight operations related to the design and testing, 
        manufacture, preparation, and delivery of aircraft; or
            ``(2) the aerial application of a substance for an 
        agricultural purpose.''.
                                 <all>
```