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

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income and statement of cash flows contained in
Form 10-Q of Cambridge Electric Light Company for the three months ended March
31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000016573
<NAME> CAMBRIDGE ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>           94,175
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          9,854
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              34,943
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            71,317
<OTHER-ASSETS>                      29,837
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     240,126
<COMMON>                             8,665
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>           27,953
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 11,864
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>      48,482
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                 7,301
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                       0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>          100
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>              0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                         0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     184,243
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      240,126
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           27,372
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                  (149)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          26,945
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          26,796
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                576
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                     395
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>         971
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             1,043
<NET-INCOME>                           (72)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>            0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             4,246
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>              292
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>               5,869
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
4.403 Responsibilities of contracting officers. ( a ) *Presolicitation phase.* Contracting officers shall review all proposed solicitations to determine whether access to classified information may be required by offerors, or by a contractor during contract performance. ( 1 ) If access to classified information of another agency may be required, the contracting officer shall— ( i ) Determine if the agency is covered by the NISP; and
( ii ) Follow that agency's procedures for determining the security clearances of firms to be solicited.
( 2 ) If the classified information required is from the contracting officer's agency, the contracting officer shall follow agency procedures.
( b ) *Solicitation phase.* Contracting officers shall— ( 1 ) Ensure that the classified acquisition is conducted as required by the NISP or agency procedures, as appropriate; and
( 2 ) Include— ( i ) An appropriate Security Requirements clause in the solicitation (see 4.404); and
( ii ) As appropriate, in solicitations and contracts when the contract may require access to classified information, a requirement for security safeguards in addition to those provided in the clause (52.204-2, Security Requirements).
( c ) *Award phase.* Contracting officers shall inform contractors and subcontractors of the security classifications and requirements assigned to the various documents, materials, tasks, subcontracts, and components of the classified contract as identified in the requirement documentation as follows: ( 1 ) Nondefense agencies that have industrial security services agreements with DoD, and DoD components, shall use the Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254. The contracting officer, or authorized agency representative, is the approving official for the DD Form 254 associated with the prime contract and shall ensure the DD Form 254 is properly prepared, distributed by and coordinated with requirements and security personnel in accordance with agency procedures, see 4.402(d)(1).
( 2 ) Contracting officers in agencies not covered by the NISP shall follow agency procedures.
[48 FR 42113, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 31617, June 20, 1996; 73 FR 21781, Apr. 22, 2008; 84 FR 19840, May 6, 2019; 85 FR 40063, July 2, 2020]
#### 414.407-4 Mistakes after award.

If a mistake in bid is disclosed after award, the contracting officer shall make a final determination in accordance with the provisions of FAR 14.407-4 (b) and (c) and shall coordinate each proposed determination with OGC. Such coordination shall, at a minimum, consist of the contracting officer providing the proposed determination and the case file to OGC for comment.
# C_2019171EN.01000501.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

17 May 2019

(2019/C 171/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1172 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,34 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4677 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87595 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,7660 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1283 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7953 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,753 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 326,38 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3031 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7626 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,7659 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6239 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5074 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7694 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7107 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5365 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 334,38 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,0667 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7245 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4293 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 143,54 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6721 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,908 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,1926 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,499 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5286 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,4336 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,4330 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1172

JPY

Japanese yen

122,34

DKK

Danish krone

7,4677

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87595

SEK

Swedish krona

10,7660

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1283

ISK

Iceland króna

137,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7953

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,753

HUF

Hungarian forint

326,38

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3031

RON

Romanian leu

4,7626

TRY

Turkish lira

6,7659

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6239

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5074

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7694

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7107

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5365

KRW

South Korean won

1 334,38

ZAR

South African rand

16,0667

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7245

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4293

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 143,54

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6721

PHP

Philippine peso

58,908

RUB

Russian rouble

72,1926

THB

Thai baht

35,499

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5286

MXN

Mexican peso

21,4336

INR

Indian rupee

78,4330

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
::-:: ,.1. FRONTIER ,' \-. ; . ~ 

-.... __ ~ 

~ ,( .:1 

April16, 2013 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building, Ground Floor, 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Frontier Airlines, Inc. 

7001 Tower Road 

Denver, CO. 

80249 

Subject: Request for Extension of Exemption No. 10252 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26326 

·'·"'"'· : .. 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

p 720-374-7400 www.flyfrontierair.com 

Please accept this letter as Frontier Airlines, Inc.'s request to extend Exemption No. 

10252, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26326, The current exemption permits 

exemption from 121.434 (c) d) (ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to 

the extent n~cessary to allow Frontier Airlines to substitute a qualified and authorized 

Check Airma'n and/or Aircrew Program Designee for an FAA Inspector to observe a 

qualifying Pilot In Command (PIC) who is completing initial or up-grade training 

specified in 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. 

Frontier Airlines, Inc. is confident that granting an extension of the current Exemption 

No. 10252, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26326, would not reduce the level of 

safety, nor have an adverse impact on the intere~t of the aircraft owners or the 

government agencies. Frontier asserts that granting this extension is in the public 

interest since it will allow Frontier Airlines, Inc. to continue to provide reliable and timely 

service to the flying public by reducing the time that FAA Inspectors would be required 

to be away from the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO}, and would allow Frontier 

Airlines, Inc. greaterflexibility in scheduli,flg the required observations.,. , --

Please contact me at 303-374~7500 with any questions. 

. - .. [ . ~ . ., ;' ·. '. I" , •' • ' '< • ••• , r 

' • !. ". '··· ~ '>,:, ·~~ 

.' t, .. - ~~." • ,:::..:.- .'· '.1 ;.. I 1 ," ' •; ,: ~.-:~ ~~. '~ ' •• i,,. 

Cc: · _j: ·sendoraitis' . 'J. Roe ; • -. •· t ; 

·D .. Die~l: ..... 

A whole different animal:'
#### 327.404-70 Solicitation provision and contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.227-70, Publications and Publicity, in solicitations, contracts, and orders that involve requirements which could lead to the contractor's publishing the results of its work under the contract.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8

Ref: 8P-AR
Ms. Abigail Dillen Ms. Jocelyn D'Ambrosio Earthjustice 156 William Street, Suite 800 New York, NY 10038
Mr. Matthew Gerhart Earthjustice 705 Second Avenue, Suite 203 Seattle, \VA 98104 1595Wynkoop Street DENVER, CO 80202-1129 Phone 800-227-8917 http://w'ww.epa.gov/region08 

# NOV 19 

# 2Q12

Re: Earthjustice June4, 2012, "Petition for Reconsideration ofPartial Approval of North Dakota's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 77 Fed. Reg. 20894 (Apr. 6, 2012), Docket ID No. EPA-R08-0AR-2010-0406"
Dear Ms. Dillen, Ms. D'Ambrosio, and Mr. Gerhart:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

### has considered thepetition you submitted onJune 4, 2012, on behalfofthe National Parks ConservationAssociation and the Sierra Club, asking the agency to reconsider its decision to approve the state ofNorthDakota's BART determinations and emission limits for nitrogen oxides (NOx) for Milton R. Young Station Units 1 and 2 and Leland Olds Station Unit 2, reflected in the EPA's final rule entitled, "Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans; North Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport ofPollution Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze," 77 FR 20894 (April6, 2012). As indicated in yourpetition, the EPAproposed to disapprove the state's NOx BART determinations for these units and issue a federal implementation plan that would have required the installation ofselective catalytic reduction technology, but in its final rulemaking action, the EPA changed its position based on a U.S. District Court decision that was issued after the close ofthe EPA'spublic comment period.
Pursuantto Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B), the EPA is granting reconsideration ofthe final rule in orderto allow for public comment onthe specific issues raised in your petition. Accordingly, the EPA plans to publish a notice ofproposed rulemaking in the Federal Register in the near future addressing the state'sNOx BART detenninations and emission limits for Milton R. Young Station Units 1and 2 and Leland Olds Station Unit 2.Ifyou have any questions regarding the reconsideration process, please contactJonah Staller at (303) 312-6855 or LeaAnderson at (202) 564-5571. Wethank you for your continued interest in this rule and look forward to hearing from youduring thereconsiderationprocess.

cc: Alan Greenberg, U.S. Departmento 

### bee: Jonah Staller, 

### 80RC GailFallon, SP-AR

®Printedon RecycledPaper
2
(May 29, 1963)

#### James Como, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Peter Como, et al., Respondents, v. Frank Bastolla, Appellant.

— Judgment appealed from unanimously reversed on the law, and a new trial ordered in the exercise of discretion and in the interests of justice, with costs to abide the event. Reversible error was committed in receiving into evidence the record of previous traffic infractions which the trial court considered as “both relevant and material” to its determination (cf. *De Btasio*v. *Janssen Dairy Corp.,*279 N. Y. 501). The issue of negligence in this case was to be determined by the court on the evidence before it and not on the basis of a presumption raised or created by reason of the prior infractions *(Flannagcm*v. *Brown,*211 App. Div. 694). Where an appeal from a judgment in a nonjury case is not affirmed, this court generally will grant the judgment which the court below ought to have granted (Civ. Prae. Act, § 584, subd. 2; *Greater N. Y. Mut. Ins. Go.*v. *Perry,*6 A D 2d 432). The error referred to prevented a correct determination on the facts and we do not in .this case deem the record an adequate basis for the determination of the factual issues involved. In the interests of justice, a new trial should be directed. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### 436.500 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes clauses for insertion in USDA solicitations and contracts for construction and for dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements or structures. The contracting officer shall use the clauses as prescribed, in contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. The contracting officer may use the clauses if the contract amount is expected to be within the simplified acquisition threshold.
# C_2019070EN.01001101.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/11

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

22 February 2019

(2019/C 70/07)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1325 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 125,56 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4620 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87263 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5998 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1346 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 135,70 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7643 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,667 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 318,03 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3370 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7611 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,0378 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5923 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4976 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8884 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6639 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5324 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 273,20 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,8607 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6109 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4230 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 920,00 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6174 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,052 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 74,1694 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,493 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2392 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,7810 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,5530 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1325

JPY

Japanese yen

125,56

DKK

Danish krone

7,4620

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87263

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5998

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1346

ISK

Iceland króna

135,70

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7643

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,667

HUF

Hungarian forint

318,03

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3370

RON

Romanian leu

4,7611

TRY

Turkish lira

6,0378

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5923

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4976

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8884

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6639

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5324

KRW

South Korean won

1 273,20

ZAR

South African rand

15,8607

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6109

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4230

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 920,00

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6174

PHP

Philippine peso

59,052

RUB

Russian rouble

74,1694

THB

Thai baht

35,493

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2392

MXN

Mexican peso

21,7810

INR

Indian rupee

80,5530

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2019192EN.01002801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 192/28 |

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2019/C 192/12)

![Image 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/uriserv/OJ.C_.2019.192.01.0028.01.ENG.xhtml.C_2019192EN.01002802.tif.jpg)

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by the Vatican City State

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins [(1)](#ntr1-C_2019192EN.01002801-E0001). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2019192EN.01002801-E0002), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country
: The Vatican City State

Subject of commemoration
: 90th anniversary of the foundation of the Vatican City State

Description of the design
: The design features a portrait of Pope Pius XI (Sovereign of the State in 1929) and the Lateran in Rome. At the top, from left to right, in semi-circle is the inscription of the issuing country ‘STATO DELLA CITTÀ DEL VATICANO’. At the bottom are the years ‘1929’ and ‘2019’ and underneath the name of the artist ‘FUSCO’.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
:

91 000

Date of issue
:

4 March 2019

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2019192EN.01002801-E0001)  See [OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2001_373_R_TOC) for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2019192EN.01002801-E0002)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation ([OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2009_009_R_TOC)).

---
#### 323.7001 Policy.

The contracting officer shall follow the guidance in this subpart when additional requirements for safety and health are necessary for an acquisition.
32.304-3 Asset formula. ( a ) Under guaranteed loans made primarily for working capital purposes, the agency shall normally limit the guarantee, by use of an asset formula, to an amount that does not exceed a specified percentage (90 percent or less) of the contractor's investment (e.g., payrolls and inventories) in defense production contracts. The asset formula may include all items under defense contracts for which the contractor would be entitled to payment on performance or termination. The formula shall exclude— ( 1 ) Amounts for which the contractor has not done any work or made any expenditure;
( 2 ) Amounts that would become due as the result of later performance under the contracts; and
( 3 ) Cash collateral or bank deposit balances.
( b ) Progress payments are deducted from the asset formula.
( c ) The agency may relax the asset formula to an appropriate extent for the time actually necessary for contract performance, if the contractor's working capital and credit are inadequate.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carey Leonard Beauchamp, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which denied, without a hearing, defendant’s application in the nature of a writ of error *coram nobis*to vacate a judgment of conviction rendered May 26, 1961 upon his plea of guilty, it being his contention here that he was unlawfully deprived of his right to counsel. The District Attorney relies largely, if not entirely, on the fact that defendant, in his moving affidavit, states that he waived counsel and this, in form, he may have done, but it does not necessarily follow that he did so competently and intelligently; and, indeed, after alleging the denial of his constitutional and statutory rights, he avers: “ The sole inquiry which is permitted is whether the defendant an ex-inmate of Arizona State Hospital can compentent *[sic]*an *[sic]*intelligently waive his rights to counsel ”. As has been held: “ However regular the proceedings at which he signed a waiver of indictment, declined assistance of counsel, and pleaded guilty might appear from tho transcript, it still might be the case that petitioner did not make an intelligent and understanding waiver of his constitutional rights.” *(Sanders*v. *United States,*373 IT. S. 1, 19-20.) However inartfully drawn, the affidavit, in the liberal view we are bound to accord it, called for some response on behalf of the People and defendant was entitled to a'hearing unless his contention, should be “‘conclusively refuted by unquestionable documentary proof ’ ”, *(People*v. *Hernandez,*8 N Y 2d 345, 347, cert, denied 366 U. S. 976.) The order, which the District Attorney was directed to and presumably did prepare, refers to no documentary or other proof in opposition; and the record, as stipulated by the District Attorney, contains none. The reference in the order to “ the records on file with the Clerk of the Court” is, of course, insufficient to sustain the order or to afford any basis for its review. As respects the procedural issue here involved, *People*v. *Boehm*(309 N. Y. 362), cited by respondent, is not in point, as in that ease a hearing was had. Order reversed and matter remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

LUNDES GARRETT,

Petitioner

v.

CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC, S/B/M/T, 

CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 83 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 2017, the Application for Stay is DENIED.