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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                     53,225,000
<SECURITIES>                               66,589,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              17,128,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                2,151,000
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           42,407,000
<PP&E>                                     22,716,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             98,566,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      18,696,000
<BONDS>                                       106,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       18,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 79,764,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               98,566,000
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           62,755,000
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              16,175,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (6,800,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (46,620,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (46,620,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                              (46,620,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.64)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20549]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ11-14-000]


Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 7, 2011, Oncor Electric Delivery Company 
LLC submitted tariff filing per 35.25(e): baseline filing to be 
effective 7/6/2011, pursuant to Order 714.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99dfdccbdad6f7f5f0f7fccaece9e9f6ebedd9fffcebfab7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cc8a899e8f83a2a0a5a2a99fb9bcbca3beb88caaa9beafe2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 29, 2011.

    Dated: August 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20549 Filed 8-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## APPENDIX 12B. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS

SMALL BUSINESS INTERVIEW GUIDE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

12B.1 MIA Interview Guide for Small Businesses 12B-1

12B

- i

### 12B.1 MIA Interview Guide for Small Businesses



## Distribution Transformer Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Manufacturer Impact Analysis Interview Guide for Sm all Businesses

1. Are you aware of the US Department of Energy’s on-g oing rulemaking to establish national minimum efficiency standards for distribution trans formers? 1 Would you like to be added to the DOE’s email database for updates relating to th is rulemaking?

2. We are assessing the potential impacts of a potenti al minimum efficiency standard on small businesses. Is your company a small business (defi ned as less than 750 employees, including all subsidiaries and parent companies, and employees in all countries where you operate)?

3. Does your company manufacture LV dry-type, MV dry-t ype, and/or liquid-immersed distribution transformers? How many different kVA ratings and designs do you produce within these three major groupings?

4. Are you familiar with NEMA’s TP-1 / the E NERGY S TAR voluntary standard? Are any of your products TP-1 compliant? If so, what percent of yo ur sales does this represent?

5. Would a TP-1 standard, mandated by the US DOE (wher eby all your competitors would also required to meet the same standard), cause any burd ens on your business?

6. What if the US DOE required an efficiency standard higher than TP-1? W ould that change your answer to #5? Please consider costs such as n ew designs, capital investment, prototype testing, and marketing that might be required.

7. Are there any reasons that a small business such as yours might be at a competitive disadvantage relative to a larger business under ma ndatory efficiency standards? Please consider such factors as technical expertise, capit al budgets, bulk purchasing power for material inputs (e.g., electrical steels), etc.

8. Would the Department’s proposed test procedure impo se an undue burden on small business (explanation required)? 2 Please consider such factors as technician time, statistical expertise, reporting burden, etc.

1 For information on the US DOE’s efficiency standar ds rulemaking for distribution transformers, visit: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_stan dards/commercial/distribution_transformers_anopr.ht ml

2 For information on the US DOE’s draft test procedu re for distribution transformers, visit: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_stan dards/commercial/distribution_transformers_snopr.ht ml

12B

- 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.1057 Skamokawa Creek.

The draw of the Washington State highway bridge at Skamokawa need not be opened for the passage of vessels.

[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984; 49 FR 43463, Oct. 29, 1984]
#### § 96.31 Purpose and scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes the requirement for audits of recipients, subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors that receive funds from the DOL and are not covered by subpart A.
#### § 783.34 Employees aboard vessels who are not “seamen”.

Concessionaires and their employees aboard a vessel ordinarily do not perform their services subject to the authority, direction, and control of the master of the vessel, except incidentally, and their services are ordinarily not rendered primarily as an aid in the operation of the vessel as a means of transportation. As a rule, therefore, they are not employed as seamen for purposes of the Act. Also, other employees working aboard vessels, whose service is not rendered primarily as an aid to the operation of the vessel as a means of transportation are not employed as seamen (*Knudson* v. Lee & Simmons, Inc., 163 F. 2d 95; *Walling* v. *Haden,* 153 F. 2d 196, certiorari denied 32 U.S. 866). Thus, employees on floating equipment who are engaged in the construction of docks, levees, revetments or other structures, and employees engaged in dredging operations or in the digging or processing of sand, gravel, or other materials are not employed as seamen within the meaning of the Act but are engaged in performing essentially industrial or excavation work (*Sternberg Dredging Co.* v. *Walling,* 158 F. 2d 678; *Walling* v. *Haden,* supra; *Walling* v. *Bay State Dredging & Contracting Co.,* 149 F. 2d 346; *Walling* v. *Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.,* 149 F. 2d 9, certiorari denied 327 U.S. 722). Thus, “captains” and “deck hands” of launches whose dominant work was industrial activity performed as an integrated part of harbor dredging operations and not in furtherance of transportation have been held not to be employed as seamen within the meaning of the Act (*Cuascut* v. *Standard Dredging Corp.* 94 F. Supp. 197).
#### § 785.35 Home to work; ordinary situation.

An employee who travels from home before his regular workday and returns to his home at the end of the workday is engaged in ordinary home to work travel which is a normal incident of employment. This is true whether he works at a fixed location or at different job sites. Normal travel from home to work is not worktime.
§ 104.280 Security measures for delivery of vessel stores and bunkers. ( a ) *General.* The vessel owner or operator must ensure that security measures relating to the delivery of vessel stores and bunkers are implemented to: ( 1 ) Check vessel stores for package integrity;
( 2 ) Prevent vessel stores from being accepted without inspection;
( 3 ) Deter tampering; and
( 4 ) Prevent vessel stores and bunkers from being accepted unless ordered. For vessels that routinely use a facility, a vessel owner or operator may establish and implement standing arrangements between the vessel, its suppliers, and a facility regarding notification and the timing of deliveries and their documentation.
( b ) *Maritime Security (MARSEC) Level 1.* At MARSEC Level 1, the vessel owner or operator must ensure the implementation of measures to: ( 1 ) Check vessel stores before being accepted;
( 2 ) Check that vessel stores and bunkers match the order prior to being brought on board or being bunkered; and
( 3 ) Ensure that vessel stores are controlled or immediately and securely stowed following delivery.
( c ) *MARSEC Level 2.* In addition to the security measures required for MARSEC Level 1 in this section, at MARSEC Level 2, the vessel owner or operator must also ensure the implementation of additional security measures, as specified for MARSEC Level 2 in the approved Vessel Security Plan (VSP). These additional security measures may include: ( 1 ) Intensifying inspection of the vessel stores during delivery; or
( 2 ) Checking vessel stores prior to receiving them on board.
( d ) *MARSEC Level 3.* In addition to the security measures for MARSEC Level 1 and MARSEC Level 2, at MARSEC Level 3, the vessel owner or operator must ensure the implementation of additional security measures, as specified for MARSEC Level 3 in the approved VSP. These additional security measures may include: ( 1 ) Checking all vessel stores more extensively;
( 2 ) Restricting or suspending delivery of vessel stores and bunkers; or
( 3 ) Refusing to accept vessel stores on board.
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 21

                  MARSH SUPERMARKETS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         State of            Name under which Business
Name as Specified                     Incorporation           Done if Different from
  in Charter                         or Organization         Name Specified in Charter
  ----------                         ---------------         -------------------------
<S>                                      <C>                  <C> 

Marsh Drugs, Inc.                        Indiana

Marsh Village Pantries, Inc.             Indiana              Village Pantry

Mundy Realty, Inc.                       Indiana

Mar Properties, Inc.                     Indiana

Marlease, Inc.                           Indiana

Marsh International, Inc.                Indiana

Maraines Greenery, Inc.                  Indiana              Floral Fashions

Limited Holdings, Inc.                   Indiana

Convenience Store
 Distributing Company                    Ohio                 CSDC

Marsh P.Q., Inc.                         Indiana

S.C.T., Inc.                             Indiana

North Marion Development Corp.           Indiana

C. E. Publishing, Inc.                   Indiana

Contract Transport, Inc.                 Indiana

Crystal Food Services, LLC               Indiana              Crystal Food Services

LoBill Foods, LLC                        Indiana              LoBill

Contract Transport, LLC                  Indiana

Marsh Supermarkets, LLC                  Indiana              Marsh

Village Pantry, LLC                      Indiana              Village Pantry

Marsh Drugs, LLC                         Indiana              Marsh Drugs

Trademark Holdings, Inc.                 Delaware

Marsh Clearing House, LLC                Indiana
</TABLE>



                                      17
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         9,671,994
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  654,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    745,945
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,959,270
<PP&E>                                         2,583,411
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,653,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,234,926
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       15,410
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,018,367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,653,672
<SALES>                                        661,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               685,837
<CGS>                                          98,865
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  98,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               551,664
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (234,780)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (234,780)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (234,780)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)



</TABLE>
Deny and Opinion Filed this 27th day of May, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 00624
- CV IN RE REDDIE HOUSTON , Relator Original Proceeding from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366
- 81813
- 06 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Lang

- Miers, and Myers Opinion by Justice Myers Realtor filed this petition for writ of mandamus complaining of errors on the part of the trial court with respect to forensic DNA testing. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show two things: (1) that he has no adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act. In re Bonilla , 424 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a); In re Rodriguez , No. 08

- 06

- 00334

- CR, 2007 WL 687648, at *1 (Tex. App.

— El Paso Mar. 8, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

140624F.P05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
TO
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
ADRIATIC HOLDINGS LIMITED

Pursuant to the provisions of NRS 78.385 and 78.390 Nevada Revised Statutes, this Nevada profit corporation adopts the following articles of amendment to its articles of incorporation:

1.	Name of Corporation:	ADRIATIC HOLDINGS LIMITED

2.	The Articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers if available):

Article I.	The name of this corporation is:

Heartland Oil and Gas Corp.

Article IV.	The Capital Stock shall consist of 100,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value, all of which stock shall be entitled to voting power. The Corporation may issue the shares of stock for such consideration as may be fixed by the Board of Directors.

3.	The vote by which the shareholders holding shares in the Corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such greater portion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is50.4%.*

4.	Officer Signature (Required)

/s/ Robert Knight
______________________________________
ROBERT KNIGHT, President and Director



*	If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preference or any relative or other right given to any class or series of outstanding shares, then the amendment must be approved by the vote, in addition to the affirmative vote otherwise required, of the holders of shares representing a majority of the voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless of limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.

IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and remit the proper fees may cause this filing to be rejected.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13439]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec. 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on April 21, 2000, American 
Radiolabeled Chemical, Inc., 11624 Bowling Green Drive, St. Louis, 
Missouri 63146, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of gamma 
hydroxybutyric acid (2010), a basic class of controlled substance 
listed in Schedule I.
    The firm plans to bulk manufacture small quantities of the listed 
controlled substance as radiolabeled compound.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is prsently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substance may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the proposed registration.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than July 31, 2000.

    Dated: May 19, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-13439 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.211 Mystic River. ( a ) The draw of the Amtrak railroad bridge, mile 2.4 at Mystic, shall operate as follows: ( 1 ) From April 1 to October 31, the draw shall open on signal.
( 2 ) From November 1 to March 31, the draw shall open on signal from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. From 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least eight hours notice is given.
( 3 ) Commercial vessels shall be passed immediately at any time; however, the opening may be delayed up to eight minutes to allow trains, which have entered the drawbridge block and are scheduled to cross the bridge without stopping, to clear the block.
( 4 ) All other vessels shall be passed as soon as practicable but no later than 20 minutes after the signal to open is given.
( b ) The draw of the U.S. 1 Bridge, mile 2.8, at Mystic, shall open on signal except: ( 1 ) From May 1 through October 31, from 7:40 a.m. to 6:40 p.m., the draw need only open hourly at twenty minutes before the hour.
( 2 ) From November 1 through April 30, from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least six-hours notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 43458, Oct. 29, 1984, as amended by CGD3 84-31, 50 FR 26710, June 28, 1985; CGD01-99-079, 64 FR 60675, Nov. 8, 1999; CGD01-03-115, 69 FR 31008, June 2, 2004]