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 ENERGEN CORPORATION
FOR THE THREEMONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000277595
<NAME> ENERGEN CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      328,478
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    563,166
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         166,315
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        18,846
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,076,805
<COMMON>                                           295
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      202,098
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            129,410
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 331,803
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           372,784
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             190,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    4,984
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 177,234
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,076,805
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      113,968
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             (278)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     101,007
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     100,729
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         12,961
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (9,397)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  13,717
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         9,875
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,842
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    3,842
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         4,711
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        6,820
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          28,913
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        


</TABLE>
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 | RELM Wireless Corporation |                                                 |
|----------------------|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |                      |                                                 |   |
| Date: August 8, 2012 |                      | /s/William P. Kelly                                  |   |
|                 |                      | William P. Kelly                                     |   |
|                 |                      | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 20, 2017

Order 

Clerk

December 20, 2017

154526(86)

SOUTH DEARBORN ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.,

DETROITERS WORKING FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, ORIGINAL

UNITED CITIZENS OF SOUTHWEST

DETROIT, and SIERRA CLUB,

Petitioners-Appellees,

SC: 154526

v COA: 326485 

Wayne CC: 14-008887-AA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY and DAN WYANT,

Respondents-Appellees, 

and

AK STEEL CORPORATION,

Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for the temporary admission of out-ofstate attorney Adam P. Hall to practice pro hac vice is GRANTED.
s~ ~ s ( 8--lz Re 1 '-"-~ s1 

A VEXPRESSJET -

July 2, 2012 

Kevin Adams 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

400 7m Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Docket DOT -OST -2008-0112 

Dear Mr. Adams: 

As you are aware, the subsidy contract for ExpressJet Airline's ( dba Delta Connection) Essential 

Air Service at Meridian, MS expired on June 30, 2012. ExpressJet Airlines elected not to bid on 

continuing this service and we understand that we will be held in until such time that a replacement 

carrier is determined and is ready to take over this service. 

Given that the current subsidy rate ended on June 30th and considering that fuel prices have risen 

since this rate was established two years ago, we are proposing a new interim rate based on the 13 

weekly nonstops currently being operated from Atlanta. The proposed new interim rate is outlined 

on the following page. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this revised rate. We look forward to continuing to 

provide convenient and reliable Delta Connection service between Atlanta and Meridian until such 

time that service can be transitioned to a replacement carrier. 

Respectfully submitted, 

r~ Jon Lindlief 

Director - Planning & Development 
EAS service proposal for service to Meridian, Mississippi · 

13 weekly nonstop flights 

EAS Station 

Docket Number 

Hub 

Round trips per week 

Completion Factor 

Total Passengers 

Total Block Hours 

Total Departures 

Passenger Revenue 

Other Revenue 

Total Revenue 

Pilots 

Fuel 

Maintenance 

Aircraft 

Total Directs 

. ' 

Total Indirects 

Total Operating 

Profit@ 5% 

Economic Cost 

Required Annual Subsidy 

Rate 

. . 

5.0% 

MEl 

DOT -OST -2008-0112 

ATL 

13 

98% 

30,638 

1,531 

1,330 

$3,824,848 

$484,315 

$4,309,163 

$570,577 

$1,594,252 

$791,818 

$755,154 

$3,711,801 

$1,993,933 

$5,705,733 

$285,287 

$5,991,020 

$1,681,857 

. ... _ ;,..:_
Exhibit 32(d)


                                  CERTIFICATION

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gulf Power
Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, we, the undersigned, hereby
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 our individual knowledge and
belief, that:

(1)      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gulf Power Company for the
         quarter ended March 31, 2005, which this statement accompanies, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gulf
         Power Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of Gulf Power Company.

                                               /s/Susan N. Story
                                                Susan N. Story
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer


                                             /s/Ronnie R. Labrato
                                               Ronnie R. Labrato
                                    Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                                                and Comptroller

Date:  May 4, 2005
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 Annual Report of AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (s)1350, as
adopted pursuant to (s)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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/    STEVE
ZHANG     
|Steve Zhang            
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 14, 2007
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

@ALa c. MANN 

,“U.. ..**.A& 

Eon. E.G. Towle, Opt. D. 

3tut.e DoarC 0r XXminers in Optoxiietry 

Auatic, Texas 

Dear Lr. Toxfle: 

Se are in re etter 0r June 

lath, requestLq an op epurtrnent, rogwdingthe aiithorlty o d 0r acarniners 0r optomtry to rer ror exednation on the gro 

or the ROVESed civil St 

sbil bc entirely fair 

recb&zed school of cjptom3try. All Q>- 

-Jlicazts exaeinod ot the mm time silall 

be c:vm lCier:tlc;~l cLtiesticr,s. The board 

cay rerkze to a&At ycrsons to its exacinatlou or to issue liox~~es for 3ny or tte 

r0iio;eg r;3as03sz 
Hon. H.C. Towle, Puce 2 

*I. The preae::tation to the board of 

any untrue atatment or any dooumht or toat&my uhiob was illegally or traudulently 

obtalsed, or when fraud or deoelt hna been 

pmotloed in pesalng the exanlnatlon. 

"2. Conviction OS a relony, or or a 

mface=eanor whloh lr,volvoa noral turpitude. 

"3. Other ,gosaly unprofessional or 

dishonorable conduct of a oharaoter likely 

to deceive or defraud the p&bllo, or ror 

habits of 1ntc;;zparsnc.e or drug addlotlon. 

my appllaant who may be rzruaed an oxaminatlon or a Ucense, after legal notloe and 

a full and lmpsrtial hoarlag, shall have 

his ri@t or action to have suoh issue 

triad in the district court or any ocmnty 

ln zrhloh one of the &embers of the board 

shall rus:de." 

AS we intarpret this statute, the bomd 

nay by fair and reasonable exercise of dlscretlon, 

r;ake rhdhgt3 rc~ardine the fpduriOtlti00a Of the appllcant. It 1s stated In your inquiry that the bonrd 

has found the a?pllcsnt hna heretorore nlarepreaented iocta re+rdine his prior expcrI.enoe snd train-. 

Tho board has rwther round rr03 its observation 0r 

the agplloant, that by reason of said untrue staterents and other oocduot, he has baen guilty of g.ro+sly unproiesalonal or dishonest oonduct of a ohmacter 

likely to deceive or defraud the public. 

The rlndi.h@ oi your board are preauolptlvely car;-eot according to the principle obtaining in 

respect to adrnlnlstr:~tlve bosrde gonerally. 

see Shap~e v. kailroad Coztisalon 13 Tes. 

521, '73 S.?;. (26) 305. 

It is our opinion, therdore, that your 

board my refuse to atit a person to its exazilnation 

or to 13jliue a license to subh psrsm in the race of 
lion . H.C. Towls, P-&e 3 

fFn$lnG~ on the part ai the bobwd as to prevlou8 untrue etatezxents and unprof~salonal or dlshonorable 

oonduot or a oharaoter likely to deceive or dafraud 

the ?i;bllo. 

Your8 vary truly 

ATTCRX~ GIZNZRAL OF TQAS 

APPROVEDJUkl 22, 19% 

ATTORNEY. GENF3A.L Oi TEXAS
§ 273.10 Reports. ( a ) Not later than October 31 of each year, the Postmaster General shall prepare and transmit to the appropriate committees and subcommittees of the Congress an annual report summarizing actions taken under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act during the most recent 12-month period ending the previous September 30.
( b ) The report referred to in paragraph (a) of this section shall include the following information for the period covered by the report: ( 1 ) A summary of matters referred by the Investigating Official to the Reviewing Official under this part;
( 2 ) A summary of matters transmitted to the Attorney General under this part;
( 3 ) A summary of all hearings conducted by a Presiding Officer under part 962 of this title, and the results of such hearings; and
( 4 ) A summary of the actions taken during the reporting period to collect any civil penalty or assessment imposed under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act.

Damage to or Destruction of Firm Mailings
536 P.2d 1112

#### Mary M. COMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry SIMS, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dennis Merle Markham, Deceased, et al., Defendant-Respondents.

No. 11683.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

June 13, 1975.

Thomas A. Mitchell, Coeur d’Alene, for plaintiff-appellant.

Paul D. McCabe, Coeur d’Alene, Brian B. Kennedy of Turner, Stoeve, Gagliardi & Kennedy, Spokane, Wash., for defendant-respondents.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendant-respondent State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. The sole issue presented is whether the deceased son of plaintiff-appellant Mary M. Compton, a resident of Arlington, Texas, was “a relative of the named insured who is a resident of the same household” as set forth in the insurance policy.

Appellant was an insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by respondent State Farm Mutual. The policy provided for uninsured motorist coverage to a relative of the insured who was a resident of the same household. Gordon Persky, a 27 year old son of appellant Compton, was killed when the car in which he was a passenger was struck by an automobile driven by an uninsured motorist in Idaho. Appellant Compton seeks recovery for the death of her son under the provisions of the uninsured motorist clause contained in her policy with State Farm Mutual.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance carrier on the basis that Gordon Persky was not a resident of the same household as the insured. We agree and affirm.

The facts, which are clear and undisputed, indicate that while Persky may have had a legal domicile at the home of his mother, he nevertheless was not a resident of the same household within the purview of the language of the insurance policy. At the time of his death, Persky was 27 years old, had completed college and had served three and one-half years in the armed services at various stations throughout the world. When he died, he was stationed at Spokane, Washington. He owned his own automobile, which was insured with a company other than State *763Farm, which policy was in effect at the time of his death.

Under the facts before the trial court at the time of summary judgment, it was correctly concluded that Persky was not a resident of the same household as the insureds under the State Farm Mutual insurance policy. Schehen v. North-West Insurance Company, 484 P.2d 836 (Or.1971).

Affirmed. Costs to respondents.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5036 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5036

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 27 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to 
  clarify the areas included in the Dayton Aviation Heritage National 
     Historical Park and to authorize appropriations for that park.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Dayton Aviation Heritage 
Preservation Amendments Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF DAYTON AVIATION HERITAGE PRESERVATION ACT OF 1992.

    (a) Areas Included in Park.--Section 101(b) of the Dayton Aviation 
Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 410ww(b)) is amended to 
read as follows:
    ``(b) Areas Included.--The park shall consist of the following 
sites, as generally depicted on a map entitled `Dayton Aviation 
Heritage National Historical Park', numbered 362-80,010 and dated 
September 1, 2000:
            ``(1) A core parcel in Dayton, Ohio, which shall consist of 
        the Wright Cycle Company building, Hoover Block, and lands 
        between.
            ``(2) The Setzer building property (also known as the 
        Aviation Trail building property), Dayton, Ohio.
            ``(3) The residential properties at 26 South Williams 
        Street and at 30 South Williams Street, Dayton, Ohio.
            ``(4) Huffman Prairie Flying Field, located at Wright-
        Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
            ``(5) The Wright 1905 Flyer III and Wright Hall, including 
        constructed additions and attached structures, known 
        collectively as the John W. Berry, Sr. Wright Brothers Aviation 
        Center, Dayton, Ohio.
            ``(6) The Paul Laurence Dunbar State Memorial, Dayton, 
        Ohio.''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 109 of such Act (16 
U.S.C. 410ww-8) is amended by striking the colon after ``title'' and 
all that follows through the end of the sentence and inserting a 
period.
    (c) Technical Correction.--Section 107 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 
410ww-6) is amended by striking ``Secretary of Interior'' and inserting 
``Secretary of the Interior''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Constantino TOMASELLI, Appellant, v. John M. LEHMANN, Officer in Charge, U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Appellee.

No. 13476.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 16, 1958.

James M. Modarelli, Jr., Youngstown, Ohio, for appellant.

*520Sumner Canary, Eben H. Cockley and James C. Sennett, Jr., U. S. Attys., Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.

Before SIMONS and MILLER Circuit Judges, and THORNTON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the oral arguments and briefs of attorneys for the parties and upon the record in the case.

The question presented to the trial court and here on appeal is: “Can an .alien who entered this country between 1910 and 1914 and who, on March 2, 1927, was convicted in a United States District Court for a violation of a Narcotic Law now be deported by reason of the provisions of Section 241(a) (11) and 241(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?”

The pertinent part of the Section is as follows: Section 241(a) (8 U.S.C.A. § 1251) “Any alien * * * shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be deported who — (11) is, or hereafter at any time after entry has been, a narcotic drug addict, or who at any time has been convicted of a violation of any law or regulation relating to the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs * *

The appellant contends that the use of the word “hereafter” in Section 241(a) (11) means that such section was to operate prospectively subsequent to the effective date of the Act, and further represents that no Court has determined this question. Appellant’s argument is without merit because the section of the Statute under consideration is free from ambiguity.

We agree with the conclusion of District Judge Weick, from his memorandum filed in this cause, that: “This question is no longer an open one as the Supreme Court construed the section to operate retrospectively and upheld the law. Mulcahey v. Catalanotte, 353 U.S. 692, 77 S.Ct. 1025, 1 L.Ed.2d 1127; Lehmann v. United States ex rel. Carson, 353 U.S. 685, 77 S.Ct. 1022, 1 L.Ed.2d 1122.”

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and it is so ordered.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00318-CV 

 

CHIMERE CRUMP, APPELLANT 

V. 

WSBT LEWISVILLE LAND VIII LP, 

BY ITS AGENT BRIDGE TOWER PROPERTIES, LLC, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Denton County, Texas 

Trial Court No. CV-2022-02821-JP, Honorable Robert Ramirez, Presiding 

March 29, 2023 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Chimere Crump, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s 

judgment.1 Crump’s brief was originally due February 21, 2023, but was not filed. By 

letter of March 1, 2023, we notified Crump that the appeal was subject to dismissal for 

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by 

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. 
2

want of prosecution, without further notice, if a brief was not received by March 13. To 

date, Crump has neither filed a brief nor had any further communication with this Court.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

Per Curiam
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 333-54378 and 333-128232 on Forms S-8 of our report relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of RTI Biologics, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) and theeffectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting dated March 16, 2009, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of RTI Biologics, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Certified Public Accountants 

Tampa*,*Florida 

March 16, 2009
EXHIBIT 23.3




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We consent to
the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-162108, 333-38236, 333-38250, 333-47326, 333-87092 and 333-97787), Form S-3
(No. 333-152944) and Form S-3 filed as post-effective amendment No. 2 to
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-103434) of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts,
Inc. of our report dated June 28, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheet of Krispy Kreme México, S. de R. L. de C. V. and subsidiary as of December
31, 2009 and the related consolidated statements of operations, partners’ equity
and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the January 31,
2010 annual report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K/A of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts,
Inc.





Our audit
report emphasizes that Krispy Kreme México, S. de R.L. de C.V. and subsidiary
carried out significant transactions with related parties.








KPMG
      Cardenas Dosal, S.C./s/
      Luis Alejandro Bravo LimónMexico,
      D.F.June
      30, 2010










---