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

<ARTICLE>        UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Alabama Gas Corporation for the nine months June 30,
1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference by to such financial
statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>            0000003146
<NAME>           Alabama Gas Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                       PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>           309,612
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>             306
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              116,316
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>              4,010
<OTHER-ASSETS>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      430,244
<COMMON>                                 20
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            34,484
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 148,764
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>      183,268
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                119,650
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                        0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                 0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>            0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>             0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                 0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>               0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                          0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>      127,326
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>       430,244
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           279,545
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 16,431
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          226,764
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          243,195
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>              36,350
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                       39
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>       36,389
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>              7,829
<NET-INCOME>                         28,560
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>               0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        28,560
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>             6,477
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>               60,051
<EPS-BASIC>                              0.
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.
<FN>
<F1>ALABAMA GAS CORPORATION IS A SUBSIDIARY OF ENERGEN CORPORATION.
EARNINGS PER SHARE IS NOT CALCULATED AS AMOUNT WOULD NOT
BE MEANINGFUL.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Opinion issued July 23, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00778-CV

———————————

IN THE INTEREST OF C.A.Q.A., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 311th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2022-11948

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 28, 2023, appellant, Luis Quezada, filed a notice of appeal from 

the trial court’s May 9, 2023 final judgment in the suit to adjudicate parentage filed 

by appellee, Jennifer Arevalo. On July 5, 2024, appellant filed a “Motion to Dismiss 

Appeal.” In his motion, appellant stated that the parties had “reached a written 

agreement” regarding the issues presented in the appeal. Pursuant to that agreement, 

appellant requested that the Court dismiss the appeal.
2

No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no opinion has issued. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2), (c). Appellant’s motion does not include a certificate of 

conference stating that appellant conferred, or made a reasonable attempt to confer, 

with appellee regarding the relief requested in the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

10.1(a)(5). However, more than ten days have passed, and no party has expressed 

opposition to appellant’s motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2).

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 689 

To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Rules and 

Manual. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate 

Rules and Manual. 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) the Committee on Rules and Administration 

3 shall prepare a revised edition of the Senate Rules 

4 and Manual for the use of the 110th Congress; 

5 (2) the manual shall be printed as a Senate 

6 document; and 

7 (3) in addition to the usual number of docu8 ments, 1,500 additional copies of the manual shall 

9 be bound, of which— 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 689 ATS 

1 (A) 500 paperbound copies shall be for the 

2 use of the Senate; and 

3 (B) 1,000 copies shall be bound (550 

4 paperbound; 250 nontabbed black skiver; 200 

5 tabbed black skiver) and delivered as may be di6 rected by the Committee on Rules and Adminis7 tration. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.719 Glimmer Glass (Debbie's Creek). ( a ) The draw of the Monmouth County highway bridge, mile 0.4 at Manasquan, shall open on signal, except as follows: ( 1 ) From 4:30 p.m. January 1 through 8 a.m. April 1, from 4:30 p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw need open only if at least four-hours advance notice is given.
( 2 ) From Memorial Day through Labor Day from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour and half hour if any vessels are waiting to pass.
( b ) The owners of the bridge shall provide and keep in good legible condition two board gauges painted white with black figures not less than eight inches high to indicate the vertical clearance under the closed draw at all stages of the tide. The gauges shall be so placed on the bridge that they are plainly visible to operators of vessels approaching the bridge either up or downstream.
[CGD05-98-111, 64 FR 59624, Nov. 3, 1999. Redesignated and amended by USCG-2012-0306, 77 FR 37314, June 21, 2012]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-2-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                OCT-3-1998
<CASH>                                           3,838
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,275
<INVENTORY>                                     11,228
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,305
<PP&E>                                          43,202
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,028
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,975
<BONDS>                                         11,544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,154
<SALES>                                         65,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,065
<CGS>                                           35,559
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 522
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,392
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,692
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.44
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 688 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 688

   To authorize testimony in United States v. Max Obuszewski, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 26 (legislative day, September 17), 2008

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To authorize testimony in United States v. Max Obuszewski, et al.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Max Obuszewski, et al., Case No. 2008-
        CMD-5824, pending in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, 
        the prosecution has subpoenaed testimony from Justin Beller, an employee 
        in the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Justin Beller is authorized to testify in the case 
of United States v. Max Obuszewski, et al., except concerning matters 
for which a privilege should be asserted.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Darin L. White, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending May 31, 2007 of CelebrateExpress, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release 33-8238.  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.   /s/ Darin L. White   Darin L. White  Vice President, Finance  August 17, 2007
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL DOKTOREZTK,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

S. MORALES, Correctional Officer,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-55657

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-01288-JM-WVG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Michael Doktoreztk appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his safety in connection with an assault by other inmates. We have

FILED

JAN 03 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Universal Health Servs.,

Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Doktoreztk

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Morales knew of and

disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837 (1994) (claim of deliberate indifference requires showing that “the officer

[knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety”). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider a

declaration by another inmate because the inmate lacked personal knowledge of

the events at issue. See Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 416, 419 (9th

Cir. 2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and explaining that a court may

consider declarations for purposes of summary judgment only if they are made on

personal knowledge and sets out facts that would be admissible in evidence).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-55657
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior United States District **

Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL DELONGIS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

DERRICK L. OLLISON, Warden,

Ironwood State Prison,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-17143

D.C. No. 3:06-cv-04236-PJH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 6, 2012

San Francisco, California

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, and

KORMAN, Senior District Judge.**

Michael DeLongis (“DeLongis”) was sentenced to 23 years to life for seconddegree murder and corporal injury to a spouse. He appeals the denial of his habeas

FILED

NOV 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

corpus petition. DeLongis alleges that his due process and fair trial rights were

violated by the state trial court’s failure to provide voluntary intoxication and mental

disorder instructions. He argues that, absent these alleged errors, he would have been

convicted of manslaughter, not second degree murder.

Under California law, DeLongis could be convicted of murder if the jury found

he killed his wife with implied malice. Cal. Penal Code §§ 187-88. Malice is implied

“when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the

killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.” Cal. Penal Code § 188. Implied

malice also exists if the defendant “actually appreciated the risk of his actions.”

People v. Superior Court, 183 Cal. App. 4 690, 697 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010); accord Ho th

v. Carey, 332 F.3d 587, 592 (9th Cir. 2003).

Even if DeLongis was entitled to the jury instructions, we agree with the district

court that the alleged errors didn’t have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence

in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993)

(internal quotation marks omitted). DeLongis’s actions and testimony show that he

acted with implied malice. The attack was provoked only by his wife insulting him

and threatening divorce during an argument. DeLongis testified that he felt hatred

when he kicked her down the stairs. His ill-will persisted as she tumbled, and he

followed to smash her head into a wall and then repeatedly on the floor. Finally,
3

DeLongis killed his wife by strangling her, understanding that doing so would, in his

words, “stop her breathing.” Under California law, “‘homicide by strangulation

indicates malice.’” Shackleford v. Hubbard, 234 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)

(alterations omitted) (quoting People v. La Vergne, 411 P.2d 309, 313 (Cal. 1966)).

Because the alleged instructional errors didn’t substantially and injuriously

influence the jury’s verdict, DeLongis isn’t entitled to habeas relief. Brecht, 507 U.S.

at 638.

AFFIRMED.
§ 155.4052 Drills and exercises. ( a ) A vessel owner or operator required by §§ 155.1035, 155.1040, 155.5035 to have a response plan shall conduct exercises as necessary to ensure that the plan will function in an emergency. Both announced and unannounced exercises must be included.
( b ) The following are the minimum exercise requirements for vessels covered by this subpart: ( 1 ) Remote assessment and consultation exercises, which must be conducted quarterly;
( 2 ) Emergency procedures exercises, which must be conducted quarterly;
( 3 ) Shore-based salvage and shore-based marine firefighting management team tabletop exercises, which must be conducted annually;
( 4 ) Response provider equipment deployment exercises, which must be conducted annually;
( 5 ) An exercise of the entire response plan, which must be conducted every three years. The vessel owner or operator shall design the exercise program so that all components of the response plan are exercised at least once every three years. All of the components do not have to be exercised at one time; they may be exercised over the 3-year period through the required exercises or through an area exercise; and
( 6 ) Annually, at least one of the exercises listed in § 155.4052(b)(2) and (4) must be unannounced. An unannounced exercise is one in which the personnel participating in the exercise have not been advised in advance of the exact date, time, or scenario of the exercise.
( 7 ) Compliance with the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines will satisfy the vessel response plan exercise requirements. These guidelines are available on the Internet at *https://Homeport.uscg.mil/exercises .* Once on that Web site, select the link for “Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP)” and then select “Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines”. Compliance with an alternate program that meets the requirements of 33 CFR 155.1060(a) and 155.5061, and has been approved under 33 CFR 155.1065 and 155.5065 will also satisfy the vessel response plan exercise requirements.
[USCG-1998-3417, 73 FR 80649, Dec. 31, 2008, as amended by USCG-2008-1070, 78 FR 60124, Sept. 30, 2013]
OMB Control No. 2060-0336

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT, 40 CFR PART 71

FORM EMISS - EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

 INSTRUCTIONS: Use this form to calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each 

emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form GIS. If form FEE does not need to be 

submitted with the application, do not calculate actual emissions.

A. Emissions Unit ID 

Unit 4 (1 of 2)

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions

 Instructions: First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts. Second, list any other regulated pollutant (for fee 

calculation) emitted at the unit that have not already been listed. Each HAP added to the list in this step may be simply listed as "HAP". 

Next, calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each listed air pollutant. Do not calculate PTE for air 

pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives, including those that do not count towards applicability, when calculating actual 

emissions. At a minimum, round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values. Attach examples of 

calculations that illustrates the methodology used. 

 

 Air Pollutants (including regulated air pollutants and

pollutants for which the source is major)

Emission Rates CAS No.

Actual

Annual

Emissions

(tons/yr)

Potential to Emit

Hourly

(lb/hr)

Annual

(tons/yr)

PM 1.63 7.15

HCl/CL2 2.64 11.57

NOx NA 61.6

CO 6.52 13.86

SO2 NA 50.76

VOM 8.0 3.1

Hg 0.0073 0.0319 7439-97-6

As 0.0052 0.0226 7440-38-2

Be 0.0052 0.0226 7440-41-7

Cd 0.0129 0.0564 7440-43-9

Cr 0.0052 0.0226 7440-47-3

Sb 0.0000111 0.0000486 7440-31-5
§ 100.1304 Annual Seattle Yacht Club's “Opening Day” Marine Parade. ( a ) *Regulated area.* All of Portage Bay, with the northwestern limit being the University Bridge, through the Portage Cut (Montlake Cut) into and including Union Bay, with the southeastern limit being an imaginary line from Webster Point to the eastern corner of Foster Island.
( b ) *Effective period.* This regulation will be in effect from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on the first Saturday of May each year unless otherwise specified in the Thirteenth District Local Notice to Mariners.
( c ) *Special Local regulations.* ( 1 ) The regulated area shall be closed for the duration of the event to all vessel traffic not participating in the event and authorized by the event sponsor or Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
( 2 ) All persons or vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or not part of the regatta patrol are considered spectators. Spectator vessels must be at anchor within a designated spectator area or moored to a waterfront facility in a way that will not interfere with the progress of the event. The following are established as spectator areas: ( i ) Northwest of the University Bridge.
( ii ) North of the log boom which will be placed in Union Bay.
( iii ) East of Webster Point so as not to interfere with the participating vessels departing Union Bay.
( 3 ) No spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times unless cleared for such entry by the Patrol Commander.
( 4 ) Due to the large number of craft confined within this small body of water, all vessels, both spectator and participants, will maintain a “NO WAKE” speed. This requirement will be strictly enforced to preserve the safety of both life and property.
( 5 ) A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the Patrol Commander shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels signaled shall stop and shall comply with the orders of the patrol vessel. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
[CGD13-89-02, 54 FR 19167, May 4, 1989]