alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 15









ENSERCH Corporation:

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited condensed
consolidated interim financial information of ENSERCH Corporation (the
"Corporation") for the periods ended March 31, 1998 and 1997, as indicated in
our report dated May 11, 1998; because we did not perform an audit, we
expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in the
Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
1998, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-43811 on
Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 333-43811-01 on Post Effective
Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3, of ENSERCH Corporation.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
May 11, 1998
§ 865.110 Decision process. ( a ) The DRB shall meet in plenary session to review discharges and exercise its discretion on a case-by-case basis in applying the standards set forth in this regulation.
( b ) The presiding officer is responsible for the conduct of the discharge review. The presiding officer shall convene, recess, and adjourn the DRB as appropriate, and shall maintain an atmosphere of dignity and decorum at all times.
( c ) Each board member shall act under oath or affirmation requiring careful, objective consideration of the application. They shall consider all relevant material and competent information presented to them by the applicant. In addition, they shall consider all available military records, together with such other records as may be in the files and relevant to the issues before the DRB.
( d ) The DRB shall identify and address issues after a review of the following material obtained and presented in accordance with this subpart and 32 CFR part 70: available official military records, documentary evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant, presentation of testimony by or on behalf of the applicant, oral or written arguments presented by or on behalf of the applicant, and any other relevant evidence.
( e ) Application of Standards: ( 1 ) When the DRB determines that an applicant's discharge was improper, the DRB will determine which reason for discharge should have been assigned based upon the facts and circumstances properly before the discharge authority in view of the regulations governing reasons for discharge at the time the applicant was discharged.
( 2 ) When the board determines that an applicant's discharge was inequitable, any change will be based on the evaluation of the applicant's overall record of service and relevant regulations.
( f ) Voting shall be conducted in closed session, a majority of the five members' votes constituting the DRB's decision.
( g ) Details of closed session deliberations of a DRB are privileged information and shall not be divulged.
( h ) A formal minority opinion may be submitted in instances of disagreement between members of a board. The opinion must cite findings, conclusions and reasons which are the basis for the opinion. The complete case with the majority and minority recommendations will be submitted to the Director, Air Force Personnel Council.
( i ) The DRB may request advisory opinions from staff offices of the Air Force. These opinions are advisory in nature and are not binding on the DRB in its decision making process.
**Exhibit (32)(a)**

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Empire District Electric Company(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),William L. Gipson, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| **By**                                        | **/s/  William L. Gipson** |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------|--------|
| Name:  William L. Gipson                      |                       |
| Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer |                       |

 

Date:   November 6,2009

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to The Empire District ElectricCompany and will be retained by The Empire District Electric Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
§ 720.6 Agreement required prior to delivery to State authorities. ( a ) *Delivery under Article 14, UCMJ.* When delivery of any member of the Navy or Marine Corps to the civilian authorities of a State is authorized, the member's commanding officer shall, before making such delivery, obtain from the Governor or other duly authorized officer of such State a written agreement. The State official completing the agreement must show that he is authorized to bind the State to the terms of the agreement. When indicating in the agreement the naval or Marine Corps activity to which the member delivered is to be returned by the State, care should be taken to designate the closest appropriate activity (to the command to which the member is attached) that possesses special court-martial jurisdiction. The Department of the Navy considers this agreement substantially complied with when: ( 1 ) The member is furnished transportation (under escort in cases of delivery in accordance with § 720.12) to a naval or Marine Corps activity as set forth in the agreement;
( 2 ) The member is provided cash to cover incidental expenses en route thereto; and
( 3 ) The Department of the Navy is so informed. As soon as practicable, a copy of the delivery agreement shall be forwarded to the Judge Advocate General.
( b ) *Delivery under Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act.* Special forms are used when delivering prisoners under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. The Act is infrequently used and most requests are pursuant to Article 14, UCMJ. See § 720.12 for a detailed discussion of the Detainers Act.
#### § 2400.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this Regulation is to ensure, consistent with the authorities of § 2400.1 that information of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) relating to national security is protected from unauthorized disclosure, but only to the extent and for such period as is necessary to safeguard the national security.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 15, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11296

Summary Calendar

GEORGE WEBBER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

COLE JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CV-594

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Webber, federal prisoner # 14047-045, appeals the

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he 

challenged his sentence of 192 months of imprisonment for his

2002 conviction for distribution of cocaine base. Webber

contends that his sentence is unconstitutional in light of United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington,

542 U.S. 296 (2004), because it was based on facts that were not

set forth in his indictment or proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
No. 05-11296

-2-

Webber’s claims based on alleged errors that occurred at

sentencing may not be asserted in this § 2241 petition because

they fail to satisfy the requirements of the savings clause in

28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court properly dismissed Webber’s 

§ 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Padilla v. United

States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 865.124 Procedures for regional hearings.

Composition of the board for these hearings consists of three members from Washington with augmentation by two members from nearby local Air Force resources. The nearest Air Force installation or Air Force Reserve Unit is tasked to provide two officers to serve as members of the DRB. Active duty members will serve on the board as an additional duty. Reserve members will be on a temporary tour of active duty (TTAD) for the duration of the hearings. Detailed information must be provided to the individuals selected to serve before each hearing date. The administrative staff in Washington processes all cases for regional hearings, establishes hearing dates, and returns the records to the Manpower and Personnel Center at Randolph AFB, Texas, when the case is finalized.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         24,280,126
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,464,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (177,000)
<INVENTORY>                                       616,371
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               31,541,587
<PP&E>                                         27,214,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,967,414)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 43,319,915
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           8,694,860
<BONDS>                                         2,984,564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          133,515
<OTHER-SE>                                     26,371,821
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   43,319,915
<SALES>                                         3,131,407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               25,449,304
<CGS>                                           5,916,358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,977,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               14,847,288
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                436,670
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,530,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,530,100)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,530,100)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.66)
        


</TABLE>
June 10, 2015

Mr. Marshall D. Bucey

99 Redwater Drive New Concord, KY 42076

Dear Mr. Bucey:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 14, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1444), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
No. 479.

#### Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company *v.*City of Ennis et al.

March 29, 1920.

*Mr. H. M. Garwood, Mr. J. L. Gammon*and *Mr. Jesse Andrews*for petitioner.

*Mr. Rhodes S. Baker*for respondents.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District of the State of Texas denied.
#### FOUST v. CAMERON

No. 433P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 44

Petition by petitioners (Norman and Foust) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1997. Motion by Attorney General to dismiss appeal allowed 6 November 1997.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         154,399
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,308,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,629,534
<PP&E>                                      97,886,166
<DEPRECIATION>                              57,336,588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,352,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,358,490
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                    12,593,631
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,352,515
<SALES>                                      9,115,940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,928,595
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,699,420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              66,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,770,825)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (684,178)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,086,647)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,086,647)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.09)
        


</TABLE>
Fiscal Year 2007 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - PUERTO RICO

Maximum Required

Expenditures For 

Choice-Related Maximum Per-Child

Transportation Expenditure For

FY 2007 Title I And Supplemental Supplemental

LEA ID District Allocation* Educational Services** Educational Services***

4300030 PUERTO RICO 455,589,076 91,117,815 1,140.09

4399998 Undistributed 0 0 0.00

4399999 PART D SUBPART 2 0 0 0.00

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve up to 1 percent of allocations for administration and generally must

 reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2007 for school improvement activities. These adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available

 under all three columns of the table.

** An LEA must use up to an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation (the “20-percent reservation”) received from the State 

 to cover choice-related transportation costs for students who exercise a choice option and to pay for supplemental educational services for

 students whose parents request such services. The 20-percent reservation may include Title I, Part A funds or funding from other Federal,

 State, local, and private sources. The amount shown in this column is the Department’s estimate of the amount that affected LEAs - those

 with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring - may have to spend to meet this requirement. Actual 

 expenditures will depend on such factors as the number of students exercising a choice option or receiving supplemental educational services and

 the costs of satisfying these requests. An LEA has discretion to determine the allocation of these funds between choice-related transportation

 and supplemental educational services, except that it must spend at least one-quarter of the 20-percent reservation - or an amount equal to

 5 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation - on each activity if there is demand for both from students and their parents.

*** An LEA that must arrange for supplemental educational services is required to pay, for each child receiving services, the lesser of the actual cost

 of the services or an amount equal to the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation received from the State divided by the number of poor students in the

 LEA, as determined by estimates produced by the US Bureau of the Census. Thus the amount shown in this column reflects the statutory “cap”

 on per-child expenditures for supplemental educational services.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0078

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

STANLEY JOSEPH OLIVER,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until March 30, 2022, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 25 2022

02/25/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0078
### §5625. Combination of programs

The Commodity Credit Corporation may carry out a program under which commercial export credit guarantees available under section 5622 of this title are combined with direct credits from the Commodity Credit Corporation under section 5621 of this title to reduce the effective rate of interest on export sales of agricultural commodities.

(Pub. L. 95–501, title II, §205, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1531, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3677.)
### §4510. Enforcement

#### (a) Restraining order; civil action; minor violation

The district courts of the United States are vested with jurisdiction specifically to enforce, and to prevent and restrain any person from violating, any order or regulation made or issued under this subchapter. Any civil action authorized to be brought under this subsection shall be referred to the Attorney General for appropriate action, except that the Secretary is not required to refer to the Attorney General minor violations of this subchapter whenever the Secretary believes that the administration and enforcement of this subchapter would be adequately served by suitable written notice or warning to any person committing such violation.

#### (b) Civil penalties

Any person who willfully violates any provision of any order issued by the Secretary under this subchapter shall be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of not more than $1,000 for each such violation and, in the case of a willful failure to pay, collect, or remit the assessment as required by the order, in addition to the amount due, a penalty equal to the amount of the assessment on the quantity of milk as to which the failure applies. The amount of any such penalty shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil suit brought by the United States.

#### (c) Availability of other remedies

The remedies provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of, other remedies that may be available.

(Pub. L. 98–180, title I, §119, Nov. 29, 1983, 97 Stat. 1142.)
INITI AL REVIEW ENGI NEERI NG REPORT 

PMN : 15- 0559 

Focus Ready Draft 7/20/2015 

c u shi o ns , Iso 

exibl e foams for a u to seating 

MW/5 = 1700 (r epresentative , as d r awn wi th 

i s a component o f f l exibl e f oam f or a ircraf t 

a prepol yme r f o r adhesives, coatings, cast 

5 t ermi ni) . Anal 

seating . Anal og elastomers, an t h anes . 

OTHER USES : Analog i s a n adhesive component for r ubbe r t o metal 

og P s a hot and a col d cure adhesi ve . Ana l og 

i s a b e used i n t h e reacti o n i njecti on mol ding 

r the manufactu re of pol yureth ane exteri o r a u tomot ive panel s . 
Consumer Us e : No 

SAT (concerns) (07 / 13/2 01 5) : 

Re l ated 

Ana l ogs: 

Migrat i 

PBT rating : P3B1Tl Pl Bl Tl (PMN) ; P3B1Tl (Hyd Pd t ) 

Heal t h : 1- 2 Dermal , I nha l a t ion 

Eco : 1 No releases to water 
OCCUPAT I ONAL EXPOSURE RATI NG : l A 

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPT I ONS : 

POLLUTION PREVENTI ON CONSI DERATI ONS : 

No Pol luti o n Preventi o n i nformation p r ovi ded by t he s ubmitter . 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No 
INITI AL REVIEW ENGI NEERI NG REPORT 

PMN : 15- 0559 

Use : Pol yuret hane Foam f or Automoti ve Seating 

Number o f Sit e s/ Location : 1 

Fr imo , Inc Wixton MI 48393 

Days/yr : 250 

ENVI RONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

OCCUPAT I ONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

Tot . # o f wor ker s exposed via a sse ssed rout es : 8 

Basi s : The s ubmi ssion esti ma tes up to 8 workers pot entially exposed . 
I nhal a tion : 

negligibl e 

expect ed f rom 

Dermal : 

Exposure to Li q uid at 18 . 00% concentration 

High End : 

r mi s t generati o n not 

> Po t ent ial Dose Rat e : 4. 0E+2 mg/day over 250 days/yr 

> Lifetime Ave r age Daily Dose : 2 . 3E+O mg/day over 250 days/yr 

>Aver age Dail y Dose : 4 . 0E+O mg/day over 250 days/yr 

> Acut e Poten t i al Dose : 5 . 8E+O mg/day over 250 days/yr 

Number o f wor ker s (all s i tes) with der ma l exposure : 8