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

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000055373
<NAME> KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      664,962
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      6,452
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          62,028
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        11,361
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  88,776
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 833,579
<COMMON>                                        50,450
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      108,750
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             84,090
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 243,290
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           293,198
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              33,800
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  17,875
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      9,833
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 3,017
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 232,566
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  833,579
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      323,321
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             6,452
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     275,526
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     281,978
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         41,343
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                (594)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  40,749
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        23,776
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,973
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   16,973
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        24,264
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       14,914
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          45,033
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Jupiter Marine
International Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ending July 27, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence Tierney, Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


By: /s/ Lawrence Tierney
    --------------------
    Lawrence Tierney
    Principal Accounting Officer
    June 3, 2003
Exhibit 12(a)1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

        Espirito Santo Centrais Eletricas S.A. - ESCELSA (the "Company") is
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date hereof, its
annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended 2002 (the "Report").

        I, Antonio Eduardo da Silva Oliva, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to
Section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

        (i)     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Antonio Eduardo da Silva Oliva
Antonio Eduardo da Silva Oliva
Chief Executive Officer
June 30, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7699

LEROY J. BAXTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-1442-AM)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy J. Baxter, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Baxter v. Angelone, No. CA-97-1442-AM (E.D. Va. Nov.

14, 1997). We also deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. 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
Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

Strip, Inspect & Recoat 7.15 7835 6 COP Seal Teeth 

The known number of products in compliance: .. ' 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $50,657 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ \ .... ' ... 

On-Condition Costs: 0 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and close- up) 

Inspection 

7 
*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Poli.cies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? @ 

YES* 0 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. G 

YES 0 NO 0 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? G 

YES* 0 

*Explanation: 

8
#### § 1915.1 Purpose and authority.

The provisions in this part constitute safety and health regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to section 41 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 941) and occupational safety and health standards issued by the Secretary pursuant to section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655).
§ 1983.107 Hearings. ( a ) Except as provided in this part, proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, codified at subpart A of part 18 of this title.
( b ) Upon receipt of an objection and request for hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge will promptly assign the case to an ALJ who will notify the parties of the day, time, and place of hearing. The hearing is to commence expeditiously, except upon a showing of good cause or unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Hearings will be conducted de novo on the record. ALJs have broad discretion to limit discovery in order to expedite the hearing.
( c ) If both the complainant and the respondent object to the findings and/or order, the objections will be consolidated and a single hearing will be conducted.
( d ) Formal rules of evidence will not apply, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most probative evidence will be applied. The ALJ may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious.
[77 FR 40503, July 10, 2012, as amended at 86 FR 1791, Jan. 11, 2021]
# EUR-Lex - 31997D0255 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997D0255

**97/255/EC: Council Decision of 14 April 1997 amending Decision 91/116/EEC setting up the European Advisory Committee on statistical information in the economic and social spheres **

*
Official Journal L 102 , 19/04/1997 P. 0032 - 0032 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 14 April 1997 amending Decision 91/116/EEC setting up the European Advisory Committee on statistical information in the economic and social spheres (97/255/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the draft decision submitted by the Commission,

Whereas Article 4 of Decision 91/116/EEC (1) specifies the number of members of which the Committee shall consist;

Whereas by reason of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden it is necessary to adjust the number of members of the Committee accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 4 of Decision 91/116/EEC shall be replaced by the following:

'Article 4

The Committee shall consist of

- four members representing the Commission, one of whom shall be the Member of the Commission responsible for statistical information policy,

- the Chairman of the Committee on Monetary, Financial and Balance of Payments Statistics,

- the Presidents or Directors-General of the national statistical institutes of the Member States,

- two representatives per Member State appointed by the Council, after consulting the Commission, from among leading representatives of the various economic and social categories and scientific circles. With a view to the appointment of these members, each Member State shall provide the Council with a list comprising four candidates. The Council shall take account of the need for the various economic and social categories and the scientific field to be adequately represented.`

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Luxembourg, 14 April 1997.

For the Council

The President

J. VAN AARTSEN

(1) OJ No L 59, 6. 3. 1991, p. 21.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12189]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Partnership Council Meeting; Cancellation


Office of the Secretary

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On May 5, 2000 (65 FR 26190), the Department of Defense 
published a notice to announce a meeting of the Defense Partnership 
Council meeting to be held on May 23, 2000. This notice is to announce 
the cancellation of the meeting due to conflicts in members' schedules.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ben James, Chief, Labor Relations 
Branch, Field Advisory Services Division, Defense Civilian Personnel 
Management Service, 1400 Key Boulevard, Suite B-200, Arlington, VA 
22209-5144, telephone 703-696-1450.

    Dated: May 10, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-12189 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
#### Electric Bond and Share Company, Respondent, *v.*The State of New York, Appellant.

Submitted May 27, 1937;

decided June 11, 1937.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General {Leon M. Layden*and *Henry Epstein*of counsel), for appellant.

*Saul Gordon*and *Alex M. Hamburg*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loitghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 1956.20 Procedures for submission, approval and rejection.

The procedures contained in subpart C of part 1902 of this chapter shall be applicable to submission, approval, and rejection of State plans submitted under this part, except that the information required in § 1902.20(b)(1)(iii) would not be included in decisions of approval.
- 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 > Resolution Trust Corporation Refinancing, Restructuring, and Improvement Act of 1991

              														Resolution Trust Corporation Refinancing, Restructuring, and Improvement Act of 1991, December 12, 1991.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1129,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
EXHIBIT 12.2


                      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Leonard J. Hoskinson, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Ultrapetrol (Bahamas)
     Limited;

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;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
          covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

     5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
          based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
          reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
          registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
          functions):

          (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
               design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
               which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's
               ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
               information; and

          (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
               other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
               internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April [  ], 2006

/s/ Leonard J. Hoskinson
--------------------------------
Leonard J. Hoskinson


Chief Financial Officer
#### J. B. Sallas, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

1. An information that sufficiently charges the offense of murder in the second degree includes a charge of the offense of manslaughter.

2. A denial of a motion for continuance on the ground of an absent witness will not be disturbed where the witness is out of the State and no abuse of judicial discretion is shown.

3. Errors in the admission of evidence that are not vital will not cause a reversal of a judgment where the evidence of the defendant and other witnesses clearly establishes the guilt of the accused, and the judgment is in accord with the law, the charge of the court and the evidence.

This case was decided by Division A.

Writ of Error to the Criminal Court of Eecord for Walton County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*J. W. Kekoe,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Park Trammell,*Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of manslaughter in the Criminal Court of Eecord for Walton County. Among the errors assigned here is on the denial of a motion to quash the information. In support of this assignment it is merely stated that the information appears inartificially drawn, and does not clearly set'up the offense it attempts to describe. This perhaps does not rescue the assignment from the status of abandonment, but the information has been examined and while *60it may be inartificially drawn, it does sufficiently charge the offense of murder in the second degree which includes manslaughter.

On the showing made that the desired absent witness was out of the State, there does not appear to have been an abuse of discretion in denying a postponement and continuance.

A charge refused was fully covered by charges given. There may have been several technical errors in rulings on the admission of evidence, but the defendant’s own testimony and that of other witnesses clearly established guilt of the offense charged, and the errors complained of are not vital or of such nature as to cause a reversal of a judgment that accords with the law, the charge and the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford, and Cockrell, J. J., concur;

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
3/5/2009 Page of

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REVIEW REPORT

Chemical ID: P0606943/5/2009 Page of

POST FOCUS REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P0606943/5/2009 Page of



## LEGEND FOR NEW CHEMICAL S EXPOSURE REPORT

This new chemicals exposure report wa s prepared by the Exposure Assessment Branch (EAB) of the Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, USEPA.

The goals of these reports are to calcula te conservative (protective) estimates of exposure endpoints for consumers, the general population, and the environment.

For each exposure scenario to industrial releases, the following three endpoints are calculated: (1) maximum possible acute concentrations and doses (2) maximum possible chronic concentrations and doses (3) for water releases ≥ 20 days, the probability of exceedence of the aquatic concentration of concern These endpoints are identified by abbreviati ons on the Release Activity line, e.g., (1) max ADR , (2) max

LADD , (3) max PDM . Depending on the release inputs, these e ndpoints may be calculated and presented on the same page or different pages. That is, a release activity ID of mfg; max ADR, max PDM, max LADD indicates that all the exposure endpoints were cal culated from common manufacturing release values; conversely, a release activity ID of mfg &proc; max ADR indicates that only the maximum acute exposure values were calculated for manufacturing and proce ssing releases that occurred at the same site.

For each consumer product use exposure scenario, whether exposure is to the user directly or to the general population/environment, the maximum exposure values are calculated and presented together.

In addition to the exposure values above, EPA policy dir ects that exposure and release values be compared to criteria threshold values for Exposure-based and PBT Exposure-based cases.

Exposure-based (YX) cases (those with ≥ 100,000 kg/yr production volume)

Criteria are exceeded under the following conditions: Presence in consumer product with likely exposure

≥ 3E-3 mg/kg/d exposure via air, fish ingestion or drinking water

≥ 10,000 kg/yr release to environment (post-treatment)

≥ 1,000 kg/yr release to water (post-treatment)

Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic (PBT) chemical s of P2B2 rating or hi gher and production volume ≥ 20,000 kg/yr Criteria are exceeded as for YX cases, with the following differences:

≥ 2,000 kg/yr release to environment (post-treatment)

≥ 200 kg/yr release to water (post-treatment)

Bolding rules in the Report: Values for endpoints above th at are also health or eco concerns are bolded.
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 907 Lower Tribunal No. CF18

- 006445

- XX

_____________________________ R

AMON T URNER ,

Appellant ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County

. Wm. Bruce Smith, Judge.
February 6, 20 24

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

.
TRAVER , C

. J. , and WOZNIAK and BROWNLEE , JJ., c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Ann Fitz , Special Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach , for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James A. Hellickson , Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINA L UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED