alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 12.2****DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES****Calculation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred and Preference Stock DividendRequirements**                           (Millions of Dollars)   Nine Months Ended      September 30,  Year Ended December 31,   **2006**  2005  2004  2003  2002  2001 **Fixed Charges:**                        Interest on long-term debt **$****31.3**  $47.4  $45.6  $53.1  $55.2  $62.3 Other interest  **0.3**   1.3   1.4   1.5   2.2   0.7 Company obligated mandatorilyredeemable preferred securitiesdividend requirement (a)  **—**   —   —   6.3   12.6   12.6 Portion of lease payments representingan interest factor  **2.2**   2.0   2.5   3.9   1.9   3.1 Dividend requirements  **5.9**   8.0   6.6   3.2   3.3   3.4                    Total Fixed Charges **$****39.7**  $58.7  $56.1  $68.0  $75.2  $82.1                                             **Earnings:**                        Net income **$****10.8**  $73.0  $67.8  $69.6  $75.4  $53.4 Income tax expense  **20.6**   42.5   44.3   45.4   48.9   30.8 Fixed charges as above  **39.7**   58.7   56.1   68.0   75.2   82.1                    Total Earnings **$****71.1**  $174.2  $168.2  $183.0  $199.5  $166.3                                             **Ratio Of Earnings To Fixed Chargesand Preferred and Preference StockDividend Requirements**  **1.79**   2.97   3.00   2.69   2.65   2.03                     (a) From July 1, 2003 until their redemption in 2004, dividends on the monthly incomepreferred securities were included with interest on long-term debt due to the adoption ofSFAS No. 150.
43
# C_2013108EN.01002501.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/25

---

Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Département du Loiret v Commission

(Case T-369/00) (1)

1

(State aid - Land sale price - Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market - Agreement by which all the assets of the recipient of the aid were transferred to the authorities which granted the aid - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 108/65

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Département du Loiret (France) (represented by: A. Carnelutti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and J. Flett, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the state aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action.

| 2. | The Département du Loiret shall pay the costs before the Court of Justice and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Département du Loiret shall pay the costs before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.

1

---
§ 21.555 When and how must DoD Components report to the DAADS? DoD Components must report: ( a ) Each obligating or deobligating action no later than 15 days after the date of the obligation or deobligation. Doing so enables DAADS to comply with the deadline in the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282; 31 U.S.C. 6101 note) to report to the Governmentwide data system (*USASpending.gov*) established to implement requirements of that Act.
( b ) Using a method and in a format permitted either by the DAADS User Guide described in § 21.540(b) or by agreement with the DAADS Administrator.
[85 FR 51241, Aug. 19, 2020]
### §§46 to 46b. Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, §56(c), 65 Stat. 729

Section 46, act May 13, 1950, ch. 185, §2, 64 Stat. 159, related to unlawful disclosure of classified information. See section 798 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section 46a, act May 13, 1950, ch. 185, §1, 64 Stat. 159, defined terms for use in this chapter.

Section 46b, act May 13, 1950, ch. 185, §3, 64 Stat. 160, related to penalties for improper disclosure.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Savings Provision

Section 56(l) of act Oct. 31, 1951, provided that the repeal of sections 46 to 46b shall not affect any rights or liabilities existing hereunder on Oct. 31, 1951.
# C_2008171EN.01003401.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/34

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2008 — Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée v Commission

(Case T-302/04) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Creation of an Info Point Europe - Agreement concluded between the Commission and the applicant - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of first Instance - Action manifestly unfounded)

(2008/C 171/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée (Avignon, France) (represented by: F. Martineau, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.F. Pasquier and E. Manhaeve, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action based on an arbitration clause seeking an order for the Commission to pay the applicants the total sum of EUR 394 066,76 on account of its alleged failure to fulfil contractual obligations arising under the agreement on the creation of an Info Point Europe in Avignon.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranéeis ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranéeis ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, of 23.10.2004.

1

---
EN EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE PUERTO RICO 

In re:

Extensión de términos ante el paso de 

la Tormenta Tropical Ernesto

2024 TSPR 88

214 DPR ___

Número del Caso: EM-2024-0011

Fecha: 13 de agosto de 2024

Materia: Extensión de términos ante el paso de la Tormenta Tropical 

Ernesto

Este documento está sujeto a los cambios y correcciones del proceso 

de compilación y publicación oficial de las decisiones del Tribunal 

Supremo. Su distribución electrónica se hace como un servicio público 

a la comunidad.
EN EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE PUERTO RICO

In re:

Extensión de términos ante EM-2024-0011

el paso de la Tormenta 

Tropical Ernesto

RESOLUCIÓN

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 13 de agosto de 2024.

Ayer, 12 de agosto de 2024, el Servicio Nacional de 

Meteorología emitió un aviso de tormenta tropical para 

todo Puerto Rico. En vista de la situación 

climatológica, se decretó la suspensión de los trabajos 

en el Poder Judicial a partir de las 12:00 p.m. de hoy, 

hasta el jueves, 15 de agosto de 2024, cuando se 

reanudarán las operaciones si las condiciones del 

tiempo lo permiten. 

Como resultado de lo anterior, y conforme nuestra 

facultad para reglamentar los procedimientos judiciales 

al computar los términos en las distintas leyes, reglas 

o reglamentos que aplican a esos procedimientos, se 

decreta que aplicará lo dispuesto en los artículos 388 y 

389 del Código Político de 1902, 1 LPRA secs. 72 y 73. 

En consecuencia, se considerarán el 13 y el 14 de agosto 

de 2024 como si fueran días feriados. Cualquier término 

que venza en estas fechas se extenderá hasta el jueves, 

15 de agosto de 2024 o hasta que las condiciones del 

tiempo permitan reanudar las labores en los tribunales 

y así se anuncie. 

Se decreta además que todo término que dispone el 

Reglamento del Programa de Educación Jurídica Continua, 

4 LPRA Ap. XVII-F, se extenderá por igual periodo. 

 
EM-2024-0011 2

Se ordena la difusión pública e inmediata de esta 

Resolución. 

Notifíquese al Director Administrativo de los Tribunales, 

al Director de la Oficina de Prensa de la Oficina de 

Administración de los Tribunales y a la Directora del Programa 

de Educación Jurídica Continua.

Publíquese.

Lo acordó el Tribunal y certifica el Secretario del 

Tribunal Supremo.

 Javier O. Sepúlveda Rodríguez

 Secretario del Tribunal Supremo
### SUBCHAPTER VI—RURAL BROADBAND ACCESS
BIG PINE PAIUTE TRIBE OF THE OWENS VALLEY 

Big Pine Paiute Indian Reservation 

December 15, 2010
 

Mr. David W. Smith
 

NPDES Permits Office (WTR-5)
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

75 Hawthorne Street, WTR-5 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

RE:	 Certification under §401 of the Clean Water Act for NPDES Pesticide General Permit for Point 

Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides ("PGP") 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

On November 17, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") applied to the Big Pine Paiute 

Tribe of the Owens Valley (Tribe) for a water quality certification of the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System ("NPDES") General Permit for Pesticide Discharges to Waters, as it would apply to 

the Big Pine Indian Reservation. 

Pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section X of the Big Pine Tribal Water Quality 

Standards, a NPDES permit may not be issued until certification is granted or waived by the State, Tribe, 

or Territory in which the discharge originates. The Tribe has evaluated the NPDES permit and has 

concluded that the permit will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 208(e), 301, 302, 303, 

306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act, Big Pine Tribal Water Quality Standards, and other appropriate 

requirements of Tribal law. In accordance with section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the Tribe grants 

certification for the discharge of pollutants under the NPDES Pesticides General Permit. 

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Sally Manning, Tribal 

Environmental Director at 760-938-3036. 

Sincerely, 

Virgil Moose 

Tribal Chairperson 

Big Pine Tribal Office
 

P.O. Box 700 • 825 South Main Street. Big Pine, CA 93513
 

Phone: 760-938-2003. Fax: 760-938-2942
[No. 9538.

*En Banc.*

July 22, 1911.]

#### Veysey Brothers, *Appellant,*v. Bishop Mill Company, *Respondent.**1*

Appeal—Review-—-Findings. Upon a square issue of fact, affirmed on one side and denied on tlie other, findings on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless against the clear preponderance of the evidence.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Chehalis county, Sheeks, J., entered November 22, 1910, in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on contract.

Affirmed.

*O. M. Nelson,*for appellant.

*W. H. Abel,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 116 Pac. 843.

Per Curiam.

The only question involved in this case is one of fact. Parker & Simmons, thereafter Simmons, en*239gaged to cut a certain quantity of shingle bolts, and deliver them to respondent at its mill in Montesano, at the agreed price of three dollars per cord. An arrangement was made whereby credit was to be extended by appellant to Parker & Simmons. It is contended by appellant that respondent obligated itself to pay the board and commissary bill of all the men, an account of which was from time to time rendered by appellant. The original obligation assumed by respondent is contained in a letter to Parker & Simmons, and is as follows:

> “We will advance you on the above price one dollar per cord as the bolts are split on the land, and will furthermore advance as part of the above price provisions sufficient for yourselves and an extra man for a term of two or three months while you are engaged in cleaning out the creek and getting the proposition in shape to deliver bolts from it.”

Appellant,says that thereafter respondent agreed to stand good for all supplies for all the men employed, the cost of which was to be deducted from the labor checks; this without reference to the amount due on the contract. There is a square issue of fact, affirmed by one and denied by the other. In such cases we are inclined to follow the judgment of the trial judge, unless it appears to be against the clear preponderance of the testimony. Barring some inconsequential items not now necessary to be discussed, the contentions of respondent were sustained below, and for the reasons assigned are now sustained.

Judgment affirmed.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 25 October 2007 – Ferriere Nord v Commission**

**(Case T-94/03)**

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Producers of reinforcing bars – Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS – Decision based on the ECSC Treaty after expiry of that treaty – Lack of competence of the Commission

1.                     *ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS after
the expiry of that treaty (Art. 65(1), (4) and (5) CS; Council Regulation No 17, Arts 3 and 15(2)) (see paras 58, 60, 75-76,
79)*

2.                     *ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission’s competence under Article 65(4) and (5) CS to establish
and penalise an infringement of Article 65(1) CS – Disappearance on expiry of the ECSC Treaty (Arts 65(1), (4) and (5) CS
and 97 CS; Art. 305(1) EC; Merger Treaty) (see paras 91-94, 96, 98)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002, relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 – Reinforcing bars). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 – Reinforcing bars) with regard to Ferriere Nord SpA; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ferriere Nord; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,977
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                       734
<INVENTORY>                                     30,745
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,124
<PP&E>                                          75,247
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,913
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,749
<BONDS>                                        115,049
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,124
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,145
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   156,718
<SALES>                                        231,976
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               231,976
<CGS>                                          199,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  221,097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (112)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,238
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,247)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (460)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,787)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,787)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.3

Certification Pursuant

To 18 U. S. C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Brent D. Bailey, President and Chief Executive Officer certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Cyanotech Corporation;
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date: August 27, 2015 | /s/ Brent D. Bailey                                              
|--------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                      | Brent D. BaileyPresident and Chief Executive Officer and Director
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Reconversion Problems in the Buffalo Industrial Area

              																	Gody, Celia Star					,	Searle, Allan D.					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Reconversion Problems in the Buffalo Industrial Area : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 804*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1945,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4274,			accessed on August 31, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6054

EMORY ALVIN MICHAU, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EDSEL T. TAYLOR; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney

General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 04-6056

EMORY ALVIN MICHAU, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EDSEL T. TAYLOR; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney

General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CA-03-851-6-08AK)

Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: April 1, 2004
- 2 -

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,

Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Michau has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Fortunato Aurigemma, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from an order of the Supreme Couit, Dutchess County, dated October 23,1961, which dismissed the writ, after a hearing, and remanded him to the custody of respondent. Order affirmed. *(People ex rel. Powers*v. *Jackson,*14 A D 2d 974; *People ex rel. Imbruglia*V. *Jackson,*8 A D 2d 651, affd. 9 N Y 2d 767; *People ex rel. Pannone*v. *Fay,*16 A D 2d 946, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 12 N Y 2d 642; *People*v. *Howell,*12 N Y 2d 723; *People*v. *Aurigemma,*1 A D 2d 789; cf. *People*v. *Aurigemma,*13 A D 2d 792, cert. den. 368 U. S. 969.) Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and, Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### WORTHINGTON FARMS v. FLAKE

No. 315P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 439

Petition by defendant and third party plaintiff (Lurae Flake) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 September 1997.