alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Increases in circulator MSP will result from two distinct 

1. Increased motor cost

• Switching from Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) wet‐roto

will increase purchased‐parts and/or labor costs

• Motors are either manufactured in‐house, or built‐to‐spe

house. Circulator motors cannot be bought off‐the‐shelf.

• There is no publically available data on PSC wet‐rotor mo

we have not received enough data to aggregate

- In a rulemaking, we may be able to reverse engineer motor 

- For this exercise, we extrapolate from off‐the‐shelf motors 

rulemaking

2. Increased manufacturer markup to cover manufact

redesign and conversion costs.

Incremental Costs for Circulators
2

 CRE rule looked at off‐the‐shelf PSC and ECM motor costs for sh

ranging from 6 to 16 Watts.

 A small, 1/25 HP circulator pump requires a shaft wattage of 29

• Approximately 90 Watts of draw for a PSC and 45 Watts for an ECM

 The CRE cost curves can be extrapolated to 29.8 Watts, with the 

• PSC: $15.77• ECM: $30.87• Ratio of ECM to PSC cost: 2.0

 Based on manufacturer provided data,

the shipments‐weighted‐average cost for

a 3‐Speed, Wet Rotor, PSC Circulator

motor is:

• PSC (wet‐rotor): $29.50

 Assuming the 2.0 cost ratio holds:

• ECM (wet‐rotor): $59.00

 Approximate Incremental Costs of $29.50

Baseline Motors: Cost Extrapolation
3

 Manufacturers were surveyed on estimated redesign and conve

broken out by circulator type and HP range.

 Base on survey results, we estimate the following:

Manufacturer Redesign and Conversion Costs

≤1/4 HP

Aggregate Industry Conversion

Cost $39,000,000

Annual Shipments 1,500,000Estimated Payback Period(Years) 4Shipments over Payback

Period 6,000,000

Incremental Cost per

shipment $6.50
4

Total Incremental Cost: ≤1/4 HP

Motor Cost Convers

Cost

Incremental Cost $29.50 $6.5MFG Markup 1.35 Not Applic

Distribution Markup(Preliminary) 1.55 1.5

Incremental Cost toCustomer $61.73 $10.0TOTAL Incremental Cost to

Customer $71.81
CLOTHES WASHER TEST CLOTH MEETING 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 

9:00 AM - 1:00 PM 

DOE HQ Room 1E-245 

AGENDA 

I. Background 

Historical Lot Testing Data 

Development of the original Correction Fac:or using Lot 3 as the Baseline 

11. The Lot 7 Problem 

Initial data and correction curve 

Inconsistency with manufacturers' results at low g's 

Additional testing and analysis undertaken 

Introduction of 1 OOg data 

Enhancement of Lot 3 results 

New Lot 7 correction curve (based on original ADL batch) 

Accuracy check against overall Lot 7 data 

Modified Lot 7 correction curve using averaged data 

Accuracy comparison 

Continued variability in 50g data with Lot 8 

111. Discussion of Options 

Test Procedure Modifications 

"Look Up" Table for RMC at Low G's 

Other 

IV. Next Steps 

EE-RM-TP-03-100 COMMENT 01A

CLOTHES WASHER TEST CLOTH MEETING 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 

9:00 AM - 1 :00 PM 

DOE HQ Room IE-24S 

AGENDA 

I. Background 

• Historical Lot Testing Data 

• Development of the original Correction Fac:or m;ing Lot 3 as the Baseline 

II. The Lot 7 Problem 

• Initial data and correction curve 

• Inconsistency with manufacturers' results at low g'I) 

• Additional testing and analysis undertaken 

• Introduction of 100g data 

• Enhancement of Lot 3 results 

• New Lot 7 correction curve (based on original ADL batch) 

• Accuracy check against overall Lot 7 data 

• Modified Lot 7 correction curve using averaged data 

• Accuracy comparison 

• Continued variability in SOg data with Lot 8 

III. Discussion of Options 

• Test Procedure Modifications 

• "Look Up" Table for RMC at Low G's 

• Other 

IV. Next Steps 

CLOTHES WASHER TEST CLOTH MEETING 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 

9:00 AM - 1 :00 PM 

DOE HQ Room IE-24S 

AGENDA 

I. Background 

• Historical Lot Testing Data 

• Development of the original Correction Fac:or m;ing Lot 3 as the Baseline 

II. The Lot 7 Problem 

• Initial data and correction curve 

• Inconsistency with manufacturers' results at low g'I) 

• Additional testing and analysis undertaken 

• Introduction of 100g data 

• Enhancement of Lot 3 results 

• New Lot 7 correction curve (based on original ADL batch) 

• Accuracy check against overall Lot 7 data 

• Modified Lot 7 correction curve using averaged data 

• Accuracy comparison 

• Continued variability in SOg data with Lot 8 

III. Discussion of Options 

• Test Procedure Modifications 

• "Look Up" Table for RMC at Low G's 

• Other 

IV. Next Steps
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 51 Referred in House (RFH)]







110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 51


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 22, 2007

            Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 


Whereas high quality after school programs provide safe, challenging, engaging, 
        and fun learning experiences to help children and youth develop their 
        social, emotional, physical, cultural, and academic skills;
Whereas high quality after school programs support working families by ensuring 
        that the children in such families are safe and productive after the 
        regular school day ends;
Whereas high quality after school programs build stronger communities by 
        involving the Nation's students, parents, business leaders, and adult 
        volunteers in the lives of the Nation's youth, thereby promoting 
        positive relationships among children, youth, families, and adults;
Whereas high quality after school programs engage families, schools, and diverse 
        community partners in advancing the well-being of the Nation's children;
Whereas ``Lights On Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after school 
        programs held on October 18, 2007, promotes the critical importance of 
        high quality after school programs in the lives of children, their 
        families, and their communities;
Whereas more than 28,000,000 children in the United States have parents who work 
        outside the home and 14,300,000 children in the United States have no 
        place to go after school; and
Whereas many after school programs across the United States are struggling to 
        keep their doors open and their lights on: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress supports the goals and ideals of ``Lights On 
Afterschool!'' a national celebration of after school programs.

            Passed the Senate October 18, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.`
**EXHIBIT (23)**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in each of Registration Statements No. 33-36976, 33-62021, 333-112890 and No. 333-07129 on FormS-8 of our reports dated March 4, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules of Lufkin Industries, Inc., and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lufkin Industries, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

Houston, Texas

March 14, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
and is qualified in its entirety to such financial statements (in thousands,
except per share data)
</LEGEND>


<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              83,016
<SECURITIES>                                         2,969
<RECEIVABLES>                                        4,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                          (698)
<INVENTORY>                                          1,955
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    94,577
<PP&E>                                              21,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (11,049)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     283,013
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               26,852
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               297
<OTHER-SE>                                         255,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       283,013
<SALES>                                             20,762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    20,762
<CGS>                                                9,238
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       38,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (25,168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (25,168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (25,168)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.85)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                                                             |  |                        |  |           |  
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | --------- | -
|Subsidiary                                                                                   |  | State of Incorporation |  | Ownership |  
|Nautilus Poplar, LLC                                                                         |  |                        |  | 83.5      | %
|Magellan Petroleum Australia Limited                                                         |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Magellan Petroleum Australia Limited owns the following subsidiaries directly or indirectly: |  |                        |  |           |  
|Magellan Petroleum (N.T.) Pty. Ltd.                                                          |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Paroo Petroleum Pty. Ltd.                                                                    |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Paroo Petroleum (Holdings), Inc.                                                             |  | Delaware, U.S.A.       |  | 100       | %
|Paroo Petroleum (USA), Inc.                                                                  |  | Delaware, U.S.A.       |  | 100       | %
|Magellan Petroleum (W.A.) Pty. Ltd.                                                          |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Magellan Petroleum (U.K.) Limited                                                            |  | United Kingdom         |  | 100       | %
|Magellan Petroleum (Eastern) Pty. Ltd.                                                       |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|United Oil & Gas Co. (N.T.) Pty. Ltd                                                         |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Magellan Petroleum (Qld.) Pty. Ltd.                                                          |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 80        | %
|Magellan Petroleum (Offshore) Pty. Ltd.                                                      |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
|Jarl Pty. Ltd.                                                                               |  | Queensland, Australia  |  | 100       | %
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1288]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Olympic Cross Cascade Pipeline Project, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 
National Forest, Snohomish, King, Kittitas, Grant, Adams, and Franklin 
Counties, Washington

AGENCY:  Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:  Cancellation notice.

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

SUMMARY:  On February 28, 1996, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the Olympic Cross Cascade Pipeline 
Project, a new 230-mile pipeline from western Washington to 
southeastern Washington, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 
7467). The proponent has withdrawn the proposal. When this project is 
again considered for implementation a new NOI will be filed. The 1996 
NOI is hereby rescinded.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Floyd J. Rogalski, Wenatchee National 
Forest, Cle Elum Ranger District, 803 West Second Street, Cle Elum, 
Washington 98922, telephone 509-674-4411.

    Dated: December 20, 1999.
John Phipps,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 00-1288 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
(78 South. 715)

#### CAMPBELL v. STATE.

(8 Div. 562.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 16, *1918.*

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1918.)

1. Intoxicating Liquors <&wkey;23G(7) — Possession — PBESLTMrTIONS.

■ ATlie keeping of whisky in a building not used exclusively for a dwelling is prima facie evidence that it is kept for sale, or other unlawful disposition.

2. Criminal Law &wkey;372(2) — Evidence—Admissibility — Showing Habit.

In prosecution for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, evidence tending to show that defendant and another were eoconspirators engaging in the unlawful traffic of prohibited liquors was admissible.

3. Criminal Law &wkey;>958(3) — New Trial — Grounds — Affidavits—Sufficiency.

Where defendant’s statements in his affidavits as to his knowledge of the newly discovered evidence were in direct conflict, motion for new trial was properly overruled.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

J. J.. Campbell was convicted of keeping intoxicating liquors for sale or other unlawful disposition, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Bouldin & Wimberly, of Scottsboro, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P- J;

[1] The evidence adduced by the state shows without dispute that in searching the defendant’s ginhouse, a bottle of whisky was found locked in a chest, and that the defendant, at the request of the sheriff, unlocked the chest, and that the whisky found in the chest was of the same character and was in a like bottle to that found in the water tank connected with the gin. The keeping of such liquors in a building not used exclusively for a dwelling is prima facie evidence that it was kept for sale or other unlawful disposition. Conner v. State, infra, 78 South. 715; Jones v. City of Montgomery, ante, p. 357, 77 South. 969; Wynn v. State, 11 Ala. App. 182, 65 South. 687.

[2] The evidence also tended to show that the defendant and Matchen were coconspirators or confederates engaging in the unlawful traffic of prohibited liquors, and the evidence tending to establish this relation was admitted without error. Whitehead v. State, ante, p. 247, 78 South. 467; Brindley v. State; 193 Ala. 43, 69 South. 536, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 177; Newsom v. State, 15 Ala. App. 43, 72 South. 579; Brown v. State, 15 Ala. App. 180, 72 South. 757; Howie v. State, 15 Ala. App. 185, 72 South. 759.

The* 1 trial was before the court without a jury, and «there is evidence in the record which, if believed, sustains the judgment of the trial court, and we are not convinced that the findings of the trial court on the facts were wrong. Mulligan v. State, 15 Ala. App. 204, 72 South. 761; Stout v. State, 15 Ala. App. 206, 72 South. 762.

[3] The statements of the defendant as to his knowledge in the affidavits as to the alleged newly discovered evidence are in direct conflict, and the evidence offered by the state tends to justify the conclusion that there was a conspiracy between Matchen and the defendant. The motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 12-a**ADC Telecommunications****Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges****Instructions to Paragraph 503(d) — SEC Handbook**                       Fiscal Year Ended October 31   2006  2005  2004  2003  2002    **Earnings**                    Income (loss) before income taxes $56.5  $104.8  $33.6  $(74.1) $(718.0)                     **ADD**                    + Adjustment for minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries  1.1   0.9   0.3   —   — + Income or loss from equity investees  (0.5)  —   —   —   2.6 + Fixed Charges  20.1   15.0   14.7   7.2   9.7 + Distributed income of equity investees  —   —   —   —   — + ADC’s share of pre-tax losses of equity investees for which charges arising fromguarantees are included in fixed charges  —   —   —   —   —                 Sub-total  77.2   120.7   48.6   (66.9)  (705.7)                     **SUBTRACT**                    - Interest Capitalized  —   —   —   —   — - Preference security dividend requirements of consolidated subsidiaries  —   —   —   —   — - Minority interest in pre-tax income of subsidiaries that have not incurred fixed charges  (1.1)  (0.9)  (0.3)  —   —                 Sub-total  (1.1)  (0.9)  (0.3)  —   —      Total Earnings $76.1  $119.8  $48.3  $(66.9) $(705.7)                        **Fixed Charges**                    Interest Expensed $15.8  $11.2  $8.8  $3.6  $2.4 Interest Capitalized  —   —   —   —   — Amortized premiums, discounts & capitalized expenses related to indebtedness  1.5   1.5   1.6   0.6   — Interest Within Rental Expense  2.8   2.3   4.3   3.0   7.3 Preference Security Dividend Requirements  —   —   —   —   —    Total Fixed Charges $20.1  $15.0  $14.7  $7.2  $9.7                         **Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**  3.8   8.0   3.3   (9.3)  (72.8)**Deficiency of Earnings to Fixed Charges**        74.1   715.4
SKIP TO MAIN CONTENT

          -  						Careers					 
          -  						News & Media						**  							Discover													News Stories													Podcasts													Publications													Gallery													Videos													Media Contacts													Media Coverage						 
          -  						Quick Links						**  							About													Badging													Business													Contacts													Mission													Museum													Organizations													New Hires													Publications													Research Library													Visiting LANL						 

# Technical Report Request

If you need a copy of "LA-02452-MS", fill out the form below to request a PDF from the LANL Research Library.

          -   
          - Los Alamos National Laboratory
          - P.O. Box 1663
          - Los Alamos, NM 87545
          - (505) 667-5061
**********

          - AT THE LAB
          -  Business Opportunities 
          -  Jobs 
          -  Organizations 
          -  Research Library 
          -  User Facilities 

          - INFORMATION
          -  Emergency, Fire 
          -  Events, Lectures 
          -  Ombuds 
          -  Resources 
          -  Reading Room 
          -  Science Museum 

          - FOR EMPLOYEES
          -  AskIT 
          -  LANLINSIDE 
          -  MyMail 
          -  New Hire Process 
          -  SSL Portal 
          -  Training 

Contact Us|Terms of Use/Privacy|Site Feedback

          -   
          -   

Contact Us|Terms of Use/Privacy|Site Feedback

Triad National Security, LLC
U.S. Dept. of Energy's NNSA
Copyright 2024 Triad National Security, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
#### Frank L. Dunn v. Charles N. Dietz.

Filed January 2, 1894.

No 5027.

Review: The only assignment or error in tlais case being that the trial judge was wrong in a certain conclusion of fact, tbe evidence examined, and *held*to support tbe court’s finding, and its decree affirmed.

*582Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Hall, J.

*Adams &*Scott, for plaintiff in error.

*Talbot & Bryan*and *T. S. Allen, contra.*

Ragan, C.

Charles N. Dietz brought suit in the district court of Lancaster county against Wilmer Mayes, Frank L. Dunn and others, to foreclose a lien for material furnished to build a house on lot 9, block 3, Sherwin’s addition to the city of Lincoln. The lien of Dietz was filed on the 15th day of August, 1888. Dunn held a mortgage against the same property executed to him by the owner, Mayes, and filed in the office of the register of deeds on the 31st day of May, 1889. Dunn defended against the lien of Dietz on the ground that the material mentioned in the lien in suit did not go into the house built on lot 9, but went into a house built by Mayes on lot 1, block 2, Sherwin’s addition, and that his, Dunn’s, mortgage was a first lien on lot 9, block- 3. Mayes made no defense. The court found that the material mentioned in the lien entered into the construction of the house on lot 9, block 3, and that Dietz had a first lien on the property. From this finding and decree Dunn prosecutes error. His counsel say: “We insist that in this case there was no evidence showing that the lumber mentioned in the mechanic’s lien, or any part of it, ever went into the building on lot 9, block 3, but that the testimony all shows that the material went into lot 1, block 2.”

We have carefully read all the evidence and cannot agree that there is no evidence to support the court’s finding. We think it is supported by competent evidence, and therefore we cannot disturb it. There is no question of law involved in the case, and the decree of the district court is

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Triad Hospitals, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James D. Shelton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ JAMES D. SHELTON   
|James D. Shelton       
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 4, 2005       



This certification
shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability pursuant to that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.