alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM PUBLIC
SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO AND  SUBSIDIARIES  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE
YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                             1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                          PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>            3,724,860
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>            330,014
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                 562,607
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>               377,252
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       4,994,733
<COMMON>                                     1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            1,302,118
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                    319,280
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>       1,621,399
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   39,253
<PREFERRED>                            140,002
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                 1,298,538
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                      50,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                    0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>         298,555
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>          252,369
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                2,576
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>             39,600
<LEASES-CURRENT>                         4,791
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>       1,247,650
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>        4,994,733
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>            2,229,643
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                    90,813
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>           1,801,477
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>           1,892,290
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                337,353
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                       2,891
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>         340,244
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>               136,202
<NET-INCOME>                            93,477
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             11,752
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>           81,725
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>               152,295
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>              118,438
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                 263,912
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.000
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 44085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15998]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

First Meeting Special Committee 236 Standards for Wireless 
Avionics Intra-Communication System (WAIC) Within 4200-4400 MHz

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of First Meeting Special Committee 236, Standards for 
Wireless Avionics Intra-Communication System (WAIC) within 4200-4400 
MHz.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of First Meeting Special Committee 236, Standards for Wireless 
Avionics Intra-Communication System (WAIC) within 4200-4400 MHz.

DATES: The meeting will be held August 9-10, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 450, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison, (202) 330-0654 or 
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 
20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web 
site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of First Meeting Special Committee 236, 
Standards for Wireless Avionics Intra-Communication System (WAIC) 
within 4200-4400 MHz. The agenda will include the following:

Tuesday August 9, 2016--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

1. Welcome
2. Administrative Remarks
3. Introductions
4. Agenda Review
5. RTCA Overview Presentation
    a. Background on RTCA, MOPS, and Process
6. SC-236 Scope and Terms of Reference review
7. Background Presentation on WAIC
8. Background Presentation on WG-96 status and work
9. SC-236 Structure and Organization of Work
10. Proposed Schedule
11. RTCA workspace presentation
12. Other Business
13. Date and Place of Next Meeting
14. Adjourn

Thursday, August 10, 2016--9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

1. Continuation of Plenary or Working Group Session

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17, 
NexGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-15998 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>
                            THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY
                            FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
                            FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
                            CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S 1998
                            THIRD QUARTER 10Q AND IS  
		            QUALIFIED BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                            FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                          236,032
<SECURITIES>                      8,141
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,059,858
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                     903,435
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,462,382
<PP&E>                        4,867,315
<DEPRECIATION>                2,922,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                4,718,265
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,366,984
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                         81,764
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                    2,736,086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  4,718,265
<SALES>                       4,084,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,084,869
<CGS>                         2,878,105
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 2,878,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               31,154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 120,040
<INCOME-TAX>                     39,015
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              81,025
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     81,025
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .37
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-11269.

#### Hickman-Bey *v.*Texas Department of Criminal Justice et al.

Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-10904.

#### Williams *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of Joseph V. Toal et al., Petitioners, v Malcolm D. MacDonald, as Chair of the Board of Collective Bargaining, et al., Respondents.

[627 NYS2d 372]

Decision after *9hearing of the New York City Board of Collective Bargaining (“the Board”), dated October 19, 1993, which denied the scope of bargaining petitions filed on December 18, 1990 and January 11, 1991, respectively, by the Sergeants Benevolent Association and the Lieutenants Benevolent Association (“petitioners”), unanimously confirmed, the petitions denied, and the consolidated proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Joan B. Lobis, JJ, entered February 22, 1994) is dismissed, without costs.

The determination of the Board finding that the purported changed circumstances between Operations Order No. 49 (1981) and Operations Order No. 118 (1991) advanced by the petitioners, including, *inter alia,*the rising level of crime, the City’s changing demographics, precinct boundaries, defective portable radios, and stress derived from additional solo patrol responsibilities, did not rise to the level of rendering the solo supervisor patrol program unsafe, was, on the facts, rationally based and supported by substantial evidence *(Uniformed Firefighters*Assn. *v City of New York,*79 NY2d 236, 241-242; *Matter of Levitt v Board of Collective Bargaining,*79 NY2d 120, 128). We have reviewed the petitioners’ remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rubin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.
No. 11-9317.

#### Flores *v.*Holder, Attorney General, et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the .docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin*v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U. S. 1 (1992) *(per curiam).*
Order entered April 10, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01389-CV

STEPHEN HOLLOWAY AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellant

V.

PINWELL INVESTMENTS LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-04637-C

ORDER

Both the clerk’s and reporter’s records in this case are overdue. By postcard dated 

December 10, 2013, we notified the Court Reporter that the reporter’s record was overdue. We 

directed the Court Reporter to file the record within thirty days. Also by postcard dated 

December 10, 2013, we notified the Dallas County Clerk that the clerk’s record was overdue. 

We directed the County Clerk to file the clerk’s record within thirty days. Thereafter, by order 

dated March 20, 2014, we ordered the Dallas County Clerk to file either the clerk’s record or 

written verification that appellant has not been found indigent and has not paid for the record

within ten days. In the same order, we ordered the Court Reporter to file either: (1) the 

reporter’s record; (2) written verification that no hearings were recorded; or (3) written 
verification that appellant has not been found indigent and has not paid for the record within ten 

days. 

By letter dated March 21, 2014, the Dallas County Clerk’s office informed the Court that 

appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay and that the clerk’s record would be “automatically 

uploaded.” To date the clerk’s record has not been filed. Accordingly we ORDER the Dallas

County Clerk to file the clerk’s record within TEN DAYS.

The Court Reporter has not filed the reporter’s record, the requested verification, or 

otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the reporter’s record. 

Accordingly, we ORDER Janet E. Wright, Official Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 

3, to file, with TEN DAYS, either: (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification that the 

reporter’s record has not been requested, or (3) written verification that no hearings were 

recorded. We notify appellant that if we receive verification he has not requested the record, we 

will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). We 

expressly CAUTION Janet E. Wright that failure to comply with this order may result in an order 

that she not sit as a court reporter until she complies.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

following persons:

Honorable Sally Montgomery

Presiding Judge

County Court at Law No. 3

John Warren

Dallas County Clerk

Janet Wright

Official Court Reporter, County Court at Law No. 3

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16001]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--National Storage Industry Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 18, 1999, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), National Storage Industry 
Consortium has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Advanced Research, Minneapolis, MN; Cirrus Logic, 
Fremont, CA; ECD, Troy, MI; EMC, Hopkinton, MA; Imation Corporation, 
Oakdale, MN; Lucent Technologies, Allentown, PA; Maxtor, Milpitas, CA; 
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, St. Paul, MN; Polaroid, 
Cambridge, MA; Silicon Graphics, Mountain View; CA; Siros Technologies, 
Mountain View, CA; Sun Microsystems, Palo Alto, CA; and Texas 
Instruments, Dallas, TX have been added as parties to this venture. The 
following colleges and universities have joined the National Storage 
Industry Consortium as university associate members: Argonne National 
Laboratory, Argonne, IL; Harvard University, Cambridge MA; Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA; Montana State University, 
Bozeman, MT; University of Akron, OH; University of Alberta, Edmonton, 
CANADA; University of Idaho, Moscow, ID; and Vanderbilt University, 
Nashville, TN. Also, Optitek, Inc., Mountain View, CA has been dropped 
as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and National Storage Industry Consortium 
intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On June 12, 1991, National Storage Industry Consortium filed its 
original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 13, 1991 (56 FR 38465).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 15, 
1997. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 1997 (62 FR 60531).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-16001 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 302-7.104 What documentation must be provided for reimbursement? When claiming reimbursement under the commuted rate, you must provide: ( a ) A receipted copy of the bill of lading (reproduced copies are acceptable) including any attached weight certificate copies if issued; or
( b ) Other evidence showing points of origin and destination and the weight of your HHG, if no bill of lading was issued, or
( c ) If a commercial HHG carrier is not used, you are responsible for establishing the weight of the HHG, and temporary storage by obtaining proper certified weight certificates. Certified weight certificates include the gross and tare weights. This is required because payment at commuted rates on the basis of constructive weight usually is not possible.
§ 304-5.4 May we authorize an employee to exceed the maximum subsistence allowances (per diem or actual expense) prescribed in applicable travel regulations where we have authorized acceptance of payment from a non-Federal source for such allowances? ( a ) Generally, yes. Subsistence allowances are usually limited to the maximum subsistence allowances (per diem or actual expense) prescribed in chapter 301 of this title for travel in CONUS, by the Secretary of Defense for travel in non-foreign areas, and by the Secretary of State for travel in foreign areas. However, the maximum subsistence allowances established by this title and by the Secretary of Defense may be exceeded as long as— ( 1 ) The non-Federal source pays the full amount of the subsistence expenses, at issue; and
( 2 ) The subsistence expense paid by the non-Federal source is comparable in value to that offered to or purchased by meeting attendees.
( b ) The maximum subsistence allowances prescribed by the Secretary of State for travel to foreign areas may not be exceeded.
[FTR Amdt. 2003-02, 68 FR 12604, Mar. 17, 2003, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2013-01, 78 FR 65212, Oct. 31, 2013]
No. 10-11066.

#### Dunson *v.*Lopez, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,425
<SECURITIES>                                       513
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                       193
<INVENTORY>                                     18,681
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,887
<PP&E>                                         107,698
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,529
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,822
<BONDS>                                         59,116
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         53
<COMMON>                                           144
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,873
<SALES>                                        124,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,869
<CGS>                                          106,062
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,487
<INCOME-TAX>                                       499
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,988
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (3,529)
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,559
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51


</TABLE>
# Comments on: 22-2023: In Re ALLEN [ORDER], Nonprecedential
28 January 2016

382P10-4

#### State v. John Lewis Wray, Jr.

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Remand

1. Dismissed

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Vacate/ Dismiss Conviction Based on Altered/ Falsified Documents

2. Dismissed

Beasley, J.,

recused
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 20, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1575 Lower Tribunal Nos. F17-15005B, F17-15199B

________________ 

### Krystal Wall, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge. Krystal Wall, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before HENDON, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                           EXHIBIT 32.2

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Angelica Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 25, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
T. M. Armstrong, Senior Vice President - Finance & Administration and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

            (1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of
                      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
                      of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  December 8, 2003


                                   /s/ T. M. Armstrong
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   T. M. Armstrong
                                   Senior Vice President - Finance and
                                   Administration and Chief Financial Officer
                                   of Angelica Corporation
§ 51-11.14 Fees. ( a ) *Generally.* The General Counsel may condition the production of records or appearance for testimony upon advance payment of a reasonable estimate of the costs to the Committee.
( b ) *Fees for records.* Fees for producing records will include fees for searching, reviewing, and duplicating records, costs of attorney time spent in reviewing the demand or request, and expenses generated by materials and equipment used to search for, produce, and copy the responsive information. Costs for employee time will be calculated on the basis of the hourly pay of the employee (including all pay, allowance, and benefits). Fees for duplication will be the same as those charged by the Committee in its Freedom of Information Act regulations at 41 CFR part 51-8.
( c ) *Witness fees.* Fees for attendance by a witness will include fees, expenses, and allowances prescribed by the court's rules. If no such fees are prescribed, witness fees will be determined based upon the rule of the Federal district court closest to the location where the witness will appear. Such fees will include cost of time spent by the witness to prepare for testimony, travel time and expenses, and for attendance in the legal proceeding.
( d ) *Payment of fees.* Witness fees for current Committee employees and any records certification fees shall be paid by check or money order presented to the Committee made payable to the United States Department of Treasury. Applicable fees for former Committee employees' testimony must be paid directly to the former employee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1821 or other applicable statutes.
( e ) *Certification (authentication) of copies of records.* The Committee Records Manager may certify that records are true copies in order to facilitate their use as evidence. Certification requests require 45 calendar days for processing and a fee of $15.00 for each document certified.
( f ) *Waiver or reduction of fees.* The General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, may, upon a showing of reasonable cause, waive or reduce any fees in connection with the testimony, production, or certification of records.
( g ) *De minimis fees.* Fees will not be assessed if the total charge would be $10.00 or less.