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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM INTERIM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q COMMUNICATIONS AND POWER, INC. FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 3, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001000564
<NAME> COMM. & POWER IND., INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1997
<CASH>                                           4,184
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     48,938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,479
<PP&E>                                          80,987
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,261
<BONDS>                                        133,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,476
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,551
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,142
<SALES>                                         55,322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,322
<CGS>                                           42,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,466
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,893
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,770
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,315)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,315)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 52006IP0530 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006IP0530

**European Parliament decision approving the appointment of Mr Leonard Orban, the new Member of the Commission nominated by Romania **

*
Official Journal 317 E , 23/12/2006 P. 0059 - 0059 *

20061223

P6_TA(2006)0530

Nomination of the Romanian Commissioner

European Parliament decision approving the appointment of Mr Leonard Orban, the new Member of the Commission nominated by Romania

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of Romania, and in particular Article 45 thereof,

- having regard to the candidate nominated by the acceding Member State, namely Mr Leonard Orban, with a view to his appointment as a Member of the Commission,

- having regard to the hearing of the candidate held on 27 November 2006,

- having regard to the Council's intention to appoint the new Member of the Commission, by common accord with the President of the Commission, as of the date of accession, namely 1 January 2007, as indicated in the letter sent by the Council to the President of the European Parliament on 31 October 2006,

- having regard to the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities, in particular Article 4(4) thereof,

- having regard to Rule 99 of its Rules of Procedure,

A. recalling the provisions of Article 214(2), third subparagraph, of the Treaty establishing the European Community,

B. in view of the outcome of the hearing of the Commissioner designate from Romania, as summarised in the letter of evaluation sent by the Chair of the competent Parliamentary Committee to the President of the European Parliament, and of the recommendation made by the Conference of Presidents,

C. whereas it is necessary to activate the procedure referred to in Article 4(2) and (3) of the aforesaid Protocol on enlargement, relating to the composition of the new Commission as from November 2009 in the context of the European Constitutional process,

1. Approves the appointment of the new Member of the Commission, Mr Leonard Orban, for the term of office remaining until 31 October 2009;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council, the Commission and the governments of the Member States.

--------------------------------------------------
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

April 20‐21, 2015

List of Attachments

AIF = Agenda Information Form

No. Attachments Presenter / Author

1 Action Item Tracking Report Vineetha Kartha

2a Administrative History Ad Hoc Group Update PPT Jason Thiriot

2b Species of Management Concern AHG Meeting Notes from April 3, 2015,

Conference Call

Larry Stevens

3 Hydrology Update and 2016 Hydrograph PPT Katrina Grantz

4a Razorback Sucker in Lower Grand Canyon and the Lake Mead Inflow Area – A

History of the Species in Biological Opinions Mark McKinstry

4b Abstract and Razorback Sucker Monitoring and Research in Lower Grand

Canyon and the Colorado River Inflow Area of Lake Mead PPT Brandon Albrecht

4c Abstract and Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus Research and Monitoring

in the Colorado River Inflow Area of Lake Mead and the Lower Grand

Canyon, Arizona and Nevada PPT

Howard

Brandenberg

5a Overview of Reclamation Budget for FY2016 PPT Glen Knowles

5b GCMRC Budget for FY2016 PPT Scott VanderKooi

6 GCMRC: Socioeconomics Studies PPT Scott VanderKooi

7 Water Quality in Lake Mead and Upstream Influences: Dissolved Oxygen

during 2014 PPT

Todd Tietjen

8 Information Needs and Program Elements for the AMP Socioeconomic

Program and SEAHG PPT

Leslie James

9a Problems with Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge into

Contemporary Resource Management by G. Casimirri

Sarah Rinkevich

9b Southern Paiute Vegetation and Cultural Resource Monitoring Program PPT Charley Bulletts

9c Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Culturally‐Important Plants in

the Colorado River Ecosystem: A Pilot Study to Explore Relationships

Between Vegetation Change and Traditional Cultural Values PPT

Helen Fairley

10a Non‐Market Value for Alternative Operations of Glen Canyon Dam: Explorations in

Choice and Valuation, Phase II Project Research and Findings and PPT Hank Jenkins‐Smith

10b Market and Non‐Market Values of Water Resources and Non‐Market Values

of Hydropower Associated with Glen Canyon Dam: A Theoretical Framework

and Literature Review by John Loomis

11 Glen Canyon Tailwater Fishery “Integrating Fish and Channel Mapping” PPT Ted Melis

12 Potential Application of an Individual‐Based Model to the Glen Canyon PPT Kirk LaGory

13 GCMRC’s Online Mapping and GIS Resources PPT Tom Gushue

14 State of the Fishery Lees Ferry PPT and

Lees Ferry and Marble Canyon Rainbow Trout Update PPT

Bill Stewart

Scott VanderKooi

15 Lees Ferry Recreational Trout Fishery  PPT John Hamill
#### CAMPBELL v. THE STATE.

(Decided April 10, 1913.)

Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. E. Blackwood.

John W. Inzer, and Inzer & Inzer, for appellant, R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, for the State.

Sayre, J.

— Affirmed.
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 84 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-36316) and Amendment No. 767 to the 1940 Act Registration
      Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2020, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 15, 2020, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity
      Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    May 15, 2020
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1



                  STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
                                TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1997            1998            1999          2000           2001
                                               --------        --------        --------      ---------       ---------
<S>                                            <C>             <C>             <C>            <C>             <C>
Earnings:

    Pre-tax income                             $ 28,312        $ 50,989        $ 94,176       $ 75,707        $ 22,238

    Fixed charges                                10,528          26,338          94,864        128,079         119,055
    Less:  Preferred stock dividends                  -          (3,234)         (4,144)        (4,144)         (4,144)
    Less:  Capitalized interest                       -            (262)              -              -               -
                                               --------        --------        --------      ---------       ---------
       Net fixed charges                         10,528          22,842          90,720        123,935         114,911
                                               --------        --------        --------      ---------       ---------

    EARNINGS                                   $ 38,840        $ 73,831       $ 184,896      $ 199,642       $ 137,149
                                               ========        ========        ========      =========       =========



FIXED CHARGES:
    Interest expense                            $ 9,330        $ 20,267        $ 81,633      $ 112,433       $ 100,817
    Preferred stock dividends                         -           3,234           4,144          4,144           4,144
    Capitalized interest                              -             262               -              -               -
    Amortization of debt costs                      329             865           4,930          6,254           6,698
    Interest factor of rental expense               869           1,710           4,157          5,248           7,396
                                               --------        --------        --------      ---------       ---------

    TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                        $ 10,528        $ 26,338        $ 94,864      $ 128,079       $ 119,055
                                               ========        ========        ========      =========       =========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                  3.7             2.8             1.9            1.6             1.2
                                               ========        ========        ========      =========       =========
</TABLE>
1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WILLIAM PATRICK FLOYD, 

Plaintiff, No. 2:14-cv-01775-SB

v. 

 

OFFICER WATKINS, in individual

and official capacities, ORDER

 Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation [30] on July 16, 

2015, in which she recommends that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment [24]. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were 

timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 

840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate 

Case 2:14-cv-01775-SB Document 34 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 2
2 – ORDER

Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de 

novo, I find no error.

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings & Recommendation [30], 

and therefore, grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [24].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ____________________ day of __________________________, 2015.

________________________________________________ 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01775-SB Document 34 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 2
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2075

To provide for expedited review of executive privilege claims and to improve

efficiency of independent counsel investigations.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 13, 1998

Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for expedited review of executive privilege claims

and to improve efficiency of independent counsel investigations.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

4 Section 594 of title 28, United States Code, is

5 amended by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(m) JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

7 CLAIMS.—

8 ‘‘(1) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION.—It shall be

9 the duty of a district court of the United States and

10 the Supreme Court of the United States to advance
2

•S 2075 IS

1 on the docket and to expedite to the maximum ex2 tent practicable the disposition of any claim assert3 ing executive privilege in any investigation author4 ized pursuant to this chapter.

5 ‘‘(2) APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT.—Notwith6 standing any other provision of law, any order of a

7 district court of the United States disposing of a

8 claim asserting executive privilege in any investiga9 tion authorized pursuant to this chapter shall be re10 viewable by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of

11 the United States. Any such appeal shall be taken

12 by a notice of appeal filed within 10 calendar days

13 after such order is entered and the jurisdictional

14 statement shall be filed within 30 calendar days

15 after such order is entered. No stay of an order de16 scribed in this subsection shall be issued by a single

17 Justice of the Supreme Court of the United

18 States.’’.

19 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

20 Section 594(m) of title 28, United States Code (as

21 added by section 1 of this Act), applies to any claim of

22 executive privilege asserted on or after January 1, 1998,

23 except that, for purposes of an order described in section

24 594(m)(1) of title 28, United States Code (as added by

25 section 1 of this Act), entered before the date of enactment
3

•S 2075 IS

1 of this Act, the time periods for appeal provided in section

2 594(m)(2) of that title 28, United States Code (as added

3 by section 1 of this Act), shall begin running on the date

4 of enactment of this Act.

Æ
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
 Biological Control of Pests Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Biological Control of Pests Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Collaborations The Biological Control of Pests Research has a long and productive history of collaborative research involving stakeholders.  Current collaborators and projects:  Optimizing Corn-based Starch "Bioplastic" Formulations to Enhance the Efficacy of Beneficial Pathogens to Control Agricultural Pests  Areawide Management of Invasive Ants  Mycotoxin Production by the Soybean Red Leaf Blotch Fungus Coniothyrium Glycines  Identification and Synthesis of Ant Toxins and Behavior Modifying Compounds Toxicology, Chemical Ecology and Management of Invasive Ants  African Lungfish CTxA: A Toxin That Supports Terrestrialization And Barrier Protection


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
### SCWC-17-0000914 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. BILLY JOEL DE LIMA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-17-0000914; CASE NO. 1DCW-16-0003892) 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 Billy Joel De Lima’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on August 27, 2019, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 8, 2019. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-17-0000914 08-OCT-2019 10:37 AM
#### American Cybersystems, Inc., Respondent, v Global Risk Management, LLC, et al., Defendants, and David C. Zakheim, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 883]—

Order and amended order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered October 20, 2010 and *633October 29, 2010, respectively, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant David C. Zakheim’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly denied the motion to dismiss the third cause of action for rent and other charges allegedly owed under a document executed by defendant Zakheim, guaranteeing the payment of all charges owed by defendant Global Risk Management, LLC to the nonparty overtenant under a sublease. Subsequent to the execution of the guaranty, the overtenant assigned the lease to plaintiff. Given that the limited guaranty contained no express provision prohibiting assignment, and the sublease expressly permitted assignment, Zakheim failed to show that the cause of action against him does not fit within any cognizable legal theory *(see Cardarelli v Scodek Constr. Corp.,*304 AD2d 894, 895 [2003]; *WHCS Real Estate Ltd. Partnership v 1610 O.C.R. Operating,*232 AD2d 548 [1996], *lv dismissed*91 NY2d 849 [1997]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40945 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. ALI ANTHONY CLARKE

Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:00-CR-4-2

-------------------- May 9, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ali Anthony Clarke (“Clarke”) was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and possession with intent to distribute controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argues that insufficient evidence existed to support his convictions. He also argues that the district court erred in admitting evidence of his prior convictions for drug-related offenses under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Because Clarke did not reurge his motion for judgment of acquittal at the closeNo. 00-40945 -2- of all the evidence, this court’s review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to determining whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Johnson , 87 F.3d 133, 136 (5th Cir. 1996). This court has carefully reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties. We conclude that no manifest miscarriage of justice occurred. See United States v. Villasenor , 236 F.3d 220, 223 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Rivas , 157 F.3d 364, 368-69 (5th Cir. 1998). We also conclude that Clarke waived his Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) argument. See United States v. Musquiz , 45 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.