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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
     from the June 30, 2000 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                         <C>                   <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-2000       JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000       JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                           12,770             12,770
<SECURITIES>                        500                500
<RECEIVABLES>                    24,611             24,611
<ALLOWANCES>                        270                270
<INVENTORY>                       4,415              4,415
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 48,873             48,873
<PP&E>                           50,071             50,071
<DEPRECIATION>                   28,096             28,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  257,044            257,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            12,796             12,796
<BONDS>                               0                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0                  0
<PREFERRED>                           0                  0
<COMMON>                            194                194
<OTHER-SE>                       99,432             99,432
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    257,044            257,044
<SALES>                               0                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 33,382             62,825
<CGS>                                 0                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    15,229             27,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  3,434              6,354
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                2,507              4,933
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   5,618             10,979
<INCOME-TAX>                      2,303              4,367
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               3,315              6,612
<DISCONTINUED>                        0                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0                  0
<CHANGES>                             0                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      3,315              6,612
<EPS-BASIC>                        0.20               0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0.20               0.40



</TABLE>
Reversed and Dismissed; Dismissed; and Memorandum Opinion filed May 17, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-05-00828-CV

NO. 14-06-00197-CV

____________

CARMELITA ESCALANTE, M. D., E. EDMUND KIM, M. D., EDGARDO 

RIVERA, M. D., AND FRANKLIN C. WONG, M. D., Appellants

V.

DONITA ROWAN AND JAMES NIESE, Appellees

______________

DONITA ROWAN AND JAMES NIESE, Appellants

V.

CARMELITA ESCALANTE, M. D., E. EDMUND KIM, M. D., EDGARDO 

RIVERA, M. D., AND FRANKLIN C. WONG, M. D., Appellees

On Appeal from the 164th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 04-64492
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

Donita Rowan and her husband, James Niese, filed suit against Dr. Carmelita P. 

Escalante, Dr. E. Edmund Kim, Dr. Edgardo Rivera, and Dr. Franklin C. Wong, physicians 

at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (“M.D. Anderson”), alleging the 

doctors were negligent in failing to diagnose and treat the recurrence of Rowan’s cancer. 

The doctors moved to dismiss the suit under section 101.106(f) of the Texas Tort Claims 

Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 101.106(f), claiming that the suit was based on conduct 

within the general scope of their employment and that the cause of action could have been 

brought against M.D. Anderson.

The trial court denied the doctors’ motion to dismiss, and they filed an interlocutory 

appeal. While the appeal was pending, the doctors filed a motion for summary judgment on 

other grounds, which the trial court granted, and Rowan and Niese appealed. This court

consolidated the appeals.1 We affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss and reversed 

the summary judgment. 251 S.W.3d 720, 722 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008).

The Supreme Court of Texas has reversed our judgment, stating:

While this case has been pending on appeal, we have decided Franka 

v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex.2011), holding among other things that, 

for purposes of section 101.106(f), a tort action is brought “under” the Texas 

Tort Claims Act, even if the government has not waived its immunity for 

such actions. 332 S.W.3d at 370–71. In light of Franka, we grant the doctors' 

petition for review, and without hearing oral argument, reverse the court of 

appeals' judgment and remand the case to the court of appeals for further 

proceedings. Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.

Escalante v. Rowan, 332 S.W.3d 365-66 (Tex. 2011). Accordingly, in light of Franka, we 

reverse the trial court's denial of the doctors’ motion to dismiss this lawsuit in Cause No. 

 

1 Cause No. 14-05-00828-CV is the doctors' interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion to 

dismiss the lawsuit. Cause No. 14-06-00197-CV is the appeal by Rowan and Niese of the trial court's grant of 

summary judgment against them.
3

14-05-00828-CV and render judgment dismissing Rowan's and Niese's claims with 

prejudice.

The dismissal of the lawsuit makes the issues raised in Cause No. 14-06-00197-CV 

moot. That appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Boyce, and Mirabal.2

.

 

2

Senior Justice Margaret Garner Mirabal sitting by assignment.
#### Lottie Wyka, as Administratrix of the Estate of Wladyslaw Wyka, Deceased, Respondent, v. John Benedicks, Appellant.

*1026Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

      As of February 23, 2000, ONIX Systems Inc. owned the following companies:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                            <C>                                  <C>                      <C>
                               NAME                                 STATE OR JURISDICTION    PERCENT OF
                                                                      OF INCORPORATION        OWNERSHIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brandt Instruments, Inc.                                                  Delaware               100
CAC Inc.                                                                  Delaware               100
   Flow Automation Inc.                                                     Texas                100
   Lots 82 and 83, Inc.                                                   Louisiana              100
   Mid-South Power Systems, Inc.                                          Louisiana              100
   Mid-South Controls & Services, Inc.                                    Louisiana              100
   Thermo Instrument Controls de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                      Mexico                100
    (1% of which shares are owned directly by ONIX Systems Inc.)
   ONIX Process Analysis Inc.                                               Texas                100
OnIX Holdings Limited                                                      England               100
   CAC UK Limited                                                          England               100
   ONIX Measurement Limited                                                England               100
   ONIX Process Analysis Limited                                           England               100
Polysonics, Inc.                                                            Texas                100
TN Spectrace Europe B.V.                                                 Netherlands             100
TN Technologies Inc.                                                        Texas                100
   Kay-Ray/Sensall, Inc.                                                  Delaware               100
   TN Technologies Canada Inc.                                             Canada                100
Westronics Inc.                                                             Texas                100
</TABLE>
30 March 2012

Richard Payton

8P

- AR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII

1595 Wynkoop Street

Denver, CO 80202

- 1129

Dear Richard :

Enclosed is the Exceptional Event report for the high wind/blowing dust event that occurred on March 22 , 2009

in Pagosa Springs , Colorado

. Data for this event are flagged on AQS, as required. This report, and the analysis

and data contained within it, clearly shows that this exceptional event passed the four required tests under 40

CFR 50.14 (3)(iv ).

Th is report was made available for public comment on our website from February 29 through March 29 , 201 2

, and was also distributed to potentially interested parties

. No public comments were received. Changes were

made to the public comment version based on input from Air Pollution Control Division Staff, including the

addition of a 5

- year data graph and grammatical corrections.

We respectfully request a review of this report and concurrence by EPA on this high wind/blowing dust event

.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Gordon E. Pierce

Program Manager

Technical Services Program

Air Pollution Control Division

cc. D ei rdre Rothery, EPA

Joe Delwiche, EPA

Greg Harshfield, APCD

Pat McGraw, APCD

Pat Reddy, APCD

Terry Furuli, APCD
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation 

SantaMonica, California 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-81698, No. 333-99005 and No. 333-110744, respectively) and Form S-8 (No. 333-70478, No. 333-96563 and No. 104227, respectively) of our reports dated March 15, 2005, relating to theconsolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

We also consent to the reference to us under the caption“Experts” in the Prospectus. 

 

 

BDO Seidman, LLP 

Los Angeles, California 

 

March 15, 2005
§ 1303.3 Organization. ( a ) The central organization of OMB is as follows: ( 1 ) The Director's Office includes the Director, the Deputy Director, the Deputy Director for Management, and the Executive Associate Director.
( 2 ) Staff Offices include General Counsel, Legislative Affairs, Communications, Management and Operations, and Economic Policy.
( 3 ) Offices that provide OMB-wide support include the Legislative Reference Division and the Budget Review Division.
( 4 ) Resource Management Offices, which develop and support the President's management and budget agenda in the areas of Natural Resources, Energy and Science; National Security; Health; Education, Income Maintenance and Labor; and General Government Programs.
( 5 ) Statutory offices include the Office of Federal Financial Management; Office of Federal Procurement Policy; Office of E-government and Information Technology; Made in America Office; and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
( b ) OMB is located in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, and the New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. OMB has no field offices. Security in both buildings prevents visitors from entering the building without an appointment.
[84 FR 22951, May 21, 2019, as amended at 89 FR 48825, June 10, 2024]
NRC NEWS

 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-02-007 March 13, 2002

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $7,500 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST HOSPITAL

IN HATO REY, PUERTO RICO, FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $7,500 civil penalty against I. Gonzalez

Martinez Oncologic Hospital in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, for violation of NRC safety requirements after

a radioactive therapy source was misplaced, left unprotected in a room where an employee

unknowingly received unnecessary exposure, and found in a trash compactor in an alley outside the

hospital some 19 hours after it was lost.

 NRC officials said that around 11:30 a.m. on March 14, 2001, hospital personnel removed a

brachytherapy implant containing about 97 millicuries of radioactive Cesium-137 from a patient. 

Failure to adequately label, count or control the radioactive material caused it to be misplaced, and it

was not until 8:00 p.m. that hospital personnel noted that it was missing.

 Federal regulations require that the dose in any unrestricted area from external sources does not

exceed 2 millirems in any one hour. However, on March 14 and 15, 2001, the hospital created

radiation levels of up to approximately 50 millirems an hour in the vicinity of the trash compactor and

public parking lot. The NRC said hospital personnel also allowed the source to remain unshielded in a

brachytherapy preparation room, a restricted area, before it was sent to the trash compactor but did not

perform adequate surveys to ensure that a hospital employee entering the room was not exposed to

radioactivity in excess of allowable limits. 

 The NRC said hospital examination of the circumstances associated with the event indicated that

the employee, who was not a radiation worker, did not receive an exposure of more than 100

millirems, the annual limit for individuals not licensed to work with radioactive material. There was

also no indication that anyone received more than 100 millirems while the material was in the trash

compactor in the alley.

 The hospital has 30 days from receipt of the Notice of Violation to either pay the civil penalty or to

protest it. 

###
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-028 June 6, 2001

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330/e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK

TO DISCUSS SAFETY PERFORMANCE AT INDIAN POINT 2 NUCLEAR PLANT

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Consolidated Edison

Company of New York on Wednesday, June 13, to discuss the results of the agencyís annual

assessment of safety performance at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant.

 The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. in

the Energy Education Center at the plant, located at Broadway and Bleakley Avenue in Buchanan,

N.Y. NRC officials will be available afterwards to answer questions.

 The performance period to be discussed is April 2, 2000, to March 31, 2001. In addition,

Consolidated Edison representatives will discuss continuing performance improvement efforts,

including, among other things, specific developments in the areas of corrective actions and employee

concerns. Indian Point 2 is currently designated by the NRC as a facility with "multiple degraded

cornerstones." (Cornerstones are measures of performance.) This designation is associated principally

with performance problems identified during an August 1999 reactor trip with electrical distribution

system complications and a February 2000 steam generator tube failure event.

 A letter sent from NRC Region I to Consolidated Edison addresses plant performance during the

period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr/ip2_eoc2001.pdf

 Current performance information for the Indian Point 2 plant is available on the NRC web site at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/IP2/ip2_chart.html

 ###
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 63559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24365]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for 
Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Comment Request

AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The NCUA is submitting the following information collection to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). This information collection is published to obtain 
comments from the public.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until January 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to 
the NCUA Clearance Officer listed below:
    Clearance Officer: Mr. Neil McNamara, National Credit Union 
Administration,1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428, Fax no. 
(703) 518-6669, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ee3ede0efe3effcefcee0edfbefa0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fc919f929d919d8e9dbc929f899dd29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
a copy of the information collection request, should be directed to 
Tracy Sumpter at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke 
Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428, or at (703) 518-6444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal for the following collection of 
information:
    Title: Central Liquidity Facility Regular Member Membership 
Application.
    OMB Number: 3133-0063.
    Form Number: CLF-8702.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Description: This is a one-time form used to request membership in 
the CLF.
    Respondents: Credit unions seeking membership in the CLF.
    Estimated No. of Respondents/Record keepers: 25.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: .5 hour.
    Frequency of Response: Other. As credit unions request membership 
in the CLF.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 12.5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: 0.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on October 26, 
2004.
Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-24365 Filed 11-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIll1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029HonorableRandyC.Hufhan,SecretaryWestVirginia DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection601-57thStreetCharleston,WestVirginia25304DearSecretaryHufhan:OnMarch12,2008,theU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)revisedthenationalambient air quality standards(NAAQS)forozone to provideincreased protectionofpublic healthandwelfare fiom ozonepollution.The new primaryozone standard wasloweredfiom 0.08 partspermillion(pprn)to 0.075ppmbasedonnumerous epidemiologicalstudiesconductedduring the pastdecadeinwhich manyofthehealth effects associated withozoneexposure have beendemonstratedatandbelow the levelofthe0.08ppmstandard, which waspromulgatedin 1997. These includearangeofserious respiratoryeffectsandincreasedprematuremortality.EPA also strengthenedthe secondary8-hour ozone standard,makingitidentical totherevisedprimarystandard,toprotectagainstwelfare effects suchasimpactsonvegetation andforestedecosystems.WithinoneyearofpromulgationofaneworrevisedNAAQS,section107(d)(l)(A)oftheCleanAir Act requires theGovernorofeachstatetosubmittoEPAa listofallareas in thestate,recommending designations foreachas "attainment," "nonattainment,"or"unclassifiable"with respect totheneworrevised standard.Therefore,EPAasksthatyouprovideyourdesignationrecommendations, including appropriate area boundaries,toEPAbyMarch12,2009with respectto therevisedozoneNAAQS.Establishing areadesignationsisakeystepintheprocessofproviding the healthprotections thatthe Clean Air Actmandates. Areas thataredesignatedas not attaining the airqualitystandardswillberequired to adoptplansto reduceambientconcentrationsofozone.The enclosedmemorandum provides guidance tostateandlocalair pollutioncontrolagenciesandTribes on theprocess for designatingareas under the2008 revisedozonestandard.EPAplanstoannounceourintended designationsas earlyaspossibleafter receiptofyourrecommendations,butnolaterthan 120daysprior topromulgatingfinal designations.Followingtheannouncementofintendeddesignations, statesandTribes willhave theopportunityto commentonanymodificationsEPAproposestotheirrecommendations.Inaccordancewith section107(d)(l)(B)of theCleanAir Act, weintendtoissuefinal designationsbyMarch12,2010(although thatdeadline may be extendedup tooneadditional yearifEPAdeterminesthat insufficientinformationisavailable toestablishdesignationsbythat date). Ourdesignationswillbebasedon themost recentthreeyearsofcertified,qualityassured monitoringdata available. Ozonenonattainment areas willbeclassified at the time ofdesignation.Theapproach EPAwill usetoclassifynonattainmentareas under the2008 revisedozoneNAAQSwillbeestablishedthrough aseparatenotice-and-comment rulemaking.EPAlooks forwardto workingwithyouandyourstafftodevelop areadesignationsunderthe2008revisedozone standards in atimely manner.Asalways,pleasefeelfreetocontactmeorMs.JudithKatz,RegionIll'sAirProtectionDivisionDirector, at215-814-2654ifadditional informationisneeded.Sincerely,Donald S.WelshRegionalAdministratorEnclosurecc:Mr. JohnA.Benedict,Division ofAir QualityDirectorWestVirginia DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

J.S.,

 Petitioner

 v.

J.C.,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 152 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.