alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Standard IFPM Vacancy Announcement Language**

**Introductory Statement:***To be placed in the “Overview” section under “Job Summary”*

This position has been identified as one of the key fire management positions under the Interagency Fire Program Management (IFPM) Standard.  This position has been categorized as a *(insert IFPM title & complexity level if appropriate)*, and requires selectee to meet the minimum qualification standards for IFPM prior to being placed into the position.  Detailed information regarding IFPM positions can be found at http://www.ifpm.nifc.gov/

**Qualifications Statement:***To be placed in the “Qualification and Evaluation” section under “Qualifications Required”*

Selective Factors:

The applicant must have possessed all of the following National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) incident management qualifications and training requirements to be considered eligible for this position: 

1. *Insert primary core qualification*

2. *Insert secondary core qualification*

3. *Insert additional required training (if applicable)*

Selectees for IFPM positions requiring currency will be required to obtain and maintain currency for the NWCG qualifications listed above.

**Required Documents Statement:***To be placed in the “How to Apply” section under “Required Documents”*

Incident Qualification and Certification System (IQCS) Master Record or other equivalent documentation which verifies you meet the required NWCG qualifications for this IFPM position.  Failure to provide this documentation by the closing date of the announcement will result in you being rated as not qualified.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 108 (Monday, June 8, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13234]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 9449]
RIN 1545-BH84


Allocation and Reporting of Mortgage Insurance Premiums; 
Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to temporary regulations 
(TD 9449) that were published in the Federal Register on Thursday, May 
7, 2009 (74 FR 21256) that explain how to allocate prepaid qualified 
mortgage insurance premiums to determine the amount of the prepaid 
premium that is treated as qualified residence interest each taxable 
year under section 163(h)(4)(F) of the Internal Revenue Code. The 
temporary regulations also provide guidance to reporting entities 
receiving premiums, including prepaid premiums, for mortgage insurance. 
The temporary regulations reflect changes to the law made by the Tax 
Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 and the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt 
Relief Act of 2007.

DATES: This correction is effective on June 8, 2009, and is applicable 
beginning May 7, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Warren (202) 622-4950 or 
Stephen Coleman (202) 622-4910 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The temporary regulations that are the subject of this document are 
under section 163-11T(e) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, the temporary regulations (TD 9449) contain an error 
that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Correction of Publication

0
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendment:

PART 1--INCOME TAXES

0
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in 
part as follows:

    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *


Sec.  1.163-11T  [Amended]

0
Par. 2. Section 1.163-11T, paragraph (e) is amended by removing the 
language in the first sentence ``expires on May 7, 2012.'' and adding 
in its place ``expires on May 4, 2012.''

Diane O. Williams,
Federal Register Liaison, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal 
Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and 
Administration).
[FR Doc. E9-13234 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           8,609
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,562
<INVENTORY>                                     26,319
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,154
<PP&E>                                          24,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,534
<BONDS>                                          6,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            77
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,657
<SALES>                                         85,241
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,241
<CGS>                                           68,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,265
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,895
<INCOME-TAX>                                       606
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,289
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,289
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Gerard O’Connor, Appellant, v New York City Board of Education, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Submitted March 7, 2011;

decided May 3, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e co urt has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10748 C onfer enc e Cal endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. DUST Y L EE L ARGE D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 08- C R

- 10- 1

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d JO L L Yan d E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Th e Feder al Pu bl i c D ef ender appoi nt ed t o r epr es ent D ust y Lee Large has
m o ve d f o r l e av e t o w i t hdr aw a nd has f i l e d a b r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A nder s v. C a lif o rn ia , 38 6 U
. S. 73 8 ( 19 67 )

. Lar ge has no t f i l e d a r e s po ns e . O ur i nde pe nde nt r e vi e w o f t he r e c o r d a nd c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f di s c l o s e s no no nf

r i vo l o us is s u e fo r a p p e a l. A c c o r d i n g ly , co u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo r le a v e to w ith d r a w is GRANTED, c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a nd t he A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D
. S ee 5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of A pp eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 24 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00447

- CV

COMPASS BANK, IMPROP ERLY NAMED AS BBVA C OMPASS BANCSHARES, INC. D/B/A COMPASS BANK , Appellant

V. WALTER THORSON , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 16

- 02814

- A



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Partida

- Kipness

Opinion by Justice Molberg Before the Court is the parties’ September 13, 2019, joint motion to vacate and remand.

We grant the motion. We vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the trial court

for further action consistent with the parties’ agreement.

/Ken Molberg// KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

COMPASS BANK, IMPROPERLY NAMED AS BBVA COMPASS BANCSHARES, INC. D/B/A COMPASS BANK, Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 00447

- CV V.

WALTER THORSON, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 16

- 02814

- A. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. Justices Bridges and Partida

- Kipness participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial court’s judgment and REMAND the case to the trial court consistent with the parties’ agreement. Each party shall bear its own costs, if any, and subject to any agreement of the parties.

Judgment entered this 24th day of September , 2019.
No. 969.

#### Sonken-Galamba Corp. et al. *v.*Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al.

March 30, 1942.

*Messrs. William C. Boatright, Harry L. Jacobs,*and *Bernard L. Glover*for petitioners. *Messrs. Cyrus Crane, Geo. J. Mersereau, Dean Wood, R. S. Outlaw, Robert G. Payne, C. S. Burg, Hobert Price,*and *E. A. Neel*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Carlos Manuel Hernandez

, * From the 42nd District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 27231

- A

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 23 2

- CR * September 11 , 20 20

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment )

( Willson , J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in t he judgment s below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment s of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
#### James Rector, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 20, 2010;

decided February 15, 2011

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed so much of Supreme Court’s order as denied appellant’s motion to amend the complaint, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)           the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Dated:  April 15, 2010                                                                      /s/ Douglas G. Markham


Douglas G. Markham


Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
#### ANDERSON v. BRADY et al.

No. 4081.

District Court, E. D. Kentucky.

April 25, 1946.

See also 6 F.R.D. 587.

Nichols, Wood, Marx & Ginter, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Martin & Smith, of Catlettsburg, Ky., for defendants.

SWINFORD, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the petition to conform to the proof as it relates to the claim against L. G. Brisbin and E. W. Seaton should be overruled.

To permit this amendment to be filed would be in effect to permit the bringing of the action against new parties in whose favor the statute of limitation has long since run. KRS 413.120. This statute of limitation bars any right of action against these named defendants personally. Section 413.200 KRS bars any right of action against them in their representative capacity. Forrest v. Jack, Receiver, 294 U.S. 158, 55 S.Ct. 370, 79 L.Ed. 829, 96 A.L.R. 1457; Hart v. Burke et al., 3 Cir., 108 F.2d 82.

Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, allowing amendments to pleadings cannot be construed to enable a party to avoid the effect of a statutory limitation fixing the time in which actions of this character must be brought. L. E. Whitham Construction Co. v. Remer, 10 Cir., 105 F.2d 371; Schram v. Poole, *9*Cir., 97 F.2d 566.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 54083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25351]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (09-091)]


NASA Advisory Council; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration announces a meeting of the National Space-Based 
Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) Advisory Board.

DATES: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.; Friday, November 6, 
2009, 9 a.m.-1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Hilton Old Town Alexandria, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, 
Virginia 22314. Metro Station: King Street.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James J. Miller, Space Operations 
Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
Washington, DC 20546. Phone 202-358-4417.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda for the meeting includes updates 
from each of the three PNT Panels (Leadership; Strategic Engagement; 
and Communication, Future Challenges), including discussion and 
deliberation of potential recommendations. The PNT Advisory Board will 
address U.S. Government interests in the following areas:
    <bullet> Implementation of the President's 2004 U.S. Space-Based 
Positioning, Navigation and Timing Policy.
    <bullet> National Space-Based PNT Executive Committee, and National 
Space-Based PNT Coordination Office.
    <bullet> Global Positioning System (GPS) Constellation and 
Modernization Plans.
    <bullet> U.S. GPS Technological Leadership and Competitiveness.
    <bullet> Promoting and Branding Current and Future PNT Capabilities 
to the U.S. and International Communities.
    <bullet> Global Technical and Market Trends for PNT Services.
    <bullet> Future Areas of Study.

The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of 
the room. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-25351 Filed 10-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
[944 NE2d 650, 919 NYS2d 114]

#### In the Matter of Uptown Holdings, LLC, et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Decided February 17, 2011

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Feerick Lynch MacCartney, PLLC,*South Nyack *(J. David MacCartney, Jr.,*of counsel), for appellants.

*Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,*New York City *(Fred Kolikoff*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Pigott and Jones. Judge Smith concurs in an opinion.

Smith, J. (concurring).

I agree that no substantial constitutional issue is presented, because, as the concurring opinion in *765the Appellate Division points out, this case is controlled by *Matter of Goldstein v New York State Urban Dev. Corp.*(13 NY3d 511 [2009]) and *Matter of Kaur v New York State Urban Dev. Corp.*(15 NY3d 235 [2010]). I think it necessary to point out, however, that our dismissal of this appeal does not imply endorsement of the Appellate Division majority opinion, which may be read to suggest that *Kelo v New London*(545 US 469 [2005]) should be followed by New York courts interpreting the New York Constitution *(see Goldstein,*13 NY3d at 546 [Smith, J., dissenting] [“The good news from today’s decision is that our Court has not followed the lead of the United States Supreme Court in rendering the ‘public use’ restriction on the Eminent Domain Clause virtually meaningless”]).

Appeal dismissed, etc.
EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR


We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Form S-8 No.  33-71822) and Form F-3 (No.  333-112136  and  333-98599),  of our
report dated  February  17, 2004,  (except as to Note 18 which is dated March 8,
2004 and as to Note 1b which is dated  December  21,  2004) with  respect to the
consolidated  financial  statements  of LanOptics  Ltd.  included in this Annual
Report on Form 20-F/A3 for the year ended December 31, 2003.



                                        KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERER
Tel-Aviv, Israel                        (formerly Kost, Forer $ Gabbay)
December 23, 2004                 Independent registered public accounting firm
“ASHHE”

2021 and Beyond 

The following are some thought provoking reminders when reviewing the “ASHHE” visual indicator. 

Approach... (...What you do first affects everything afterwards.) 

Have I set up an approach that is clear of obstacles? 

Will my approach allow for deviation of my flight path if required? 

Will my approach allow me to maintain complete control of my aircraft? 

Have I set up an approach to allow me to not touch down prior to scoop area? 

Have I set up an approach that is appropriate for the drop area? 

Have I set up an approach that aligns me with the target? 

Have I set up an approach that allows maximum time to visually acquire the target? 

Have I viewed the previous drop and understand the tag-extend intent? 

Will my approach allow for a safe exit? 

Will my approach allow the maximum safety margins possible? 

Will my approach angle allow for an easy transition to the appropriate drop height? 

Will my approach allow me to maintain an elevation above the “minimum drop height”? 

Have I armed the retardant gate and verbally acknowledged? 

Will my approach allow? 

Speed (...speed is life.) 

Is my airspeed allowing me to maintain aircraft separation in flight? 

Is my airspeed within the performance envelope for the drop sequence? 

Is my airspeed Increasing or decreasing? 

Is my airspeed radically different from my ground speed? 

Will I need to adjust my airspeed drastically to remain within the flight envelope for the drop? 

Will my airspeed be appropriate when I reach the target? 

February 2021 
 

 

 

 

Will my airspeed be adequate to fly through the “Spool up” delay during climb out, even if I have 

retained the load? 

Am I reducing my airspeed to compensate for poor pilot technique? 

Horizontal Separation (...a little to close is way too close for comfort.) 

Am I trained in operations as a flight? 

Are communications and duties understood with all aircraft in the flight? 

I will establish and maintain a safe distance between aircraft? 

Will I maintain safe exit and separation from the flight? 

Height (...you can only tie the world record for low flight.) 

Am I maintaining a safe height during a “Dry Run”? 

Am I maintaining a safe height that does not threaten the “Minimum safe Drop Height”? 

Am I maintaining a safe height throughout the entire drop sequence? 

Am I familiar with the “Appropriate drop height” for the conditions in the target area? 

Am I able to maintain a safe height? 

Have I adjusted my coverage level to allow for proper height as per ATGS? 

Exit (...mountain flying is inherently dangerous.) 

Does my Approach, Speed, Horizontal Separation and Height allow for a safe Exit from the 

drop area? 

Is my exit flight path free of obstacles? 

Is my exit corridor safe even if I have to retain the load? 

Is my exit visible during the drop sequence? 

Does my planned exit corridor require a radical change of direction or elevation? 

Does my exit corridor provide options should I lose power or lift? 

Have I set a go-no-go lift off point, regardless of scoop load taken on board? 

Is my exit flight path........? 

February 2021
EXHIBIT 23


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated January 28, 1997 included in
American Home Products Corporation's (the Company) Annual Report to Shareholders
for the year ended December 31, 1996. Furthermore, we consent to the
incorporation of our reports dated January 28, 1997 included in or made part of
this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-45324 and 33-57339) and on Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-96127,
33-24068, 33-41434, 33-53733, 33-55449, 33-45970, 33-14458, 33-50149, 33-55456
and 333-15509).




                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP





New York, N.Y.
March 27, 1997
**Drills/Skills Summary**

**Drills/Skills Summary**

Drills & Skills Summary - 2Revised 2008

Drills & Skills Summary - 1Revised 2008