alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Caskey, John [mailto:Joh_Caskey@nema.org]

Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 10:20 PM

To: Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bruce Smith;

Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Charlie Drexler; Charli e Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Silcox, Clark; Creevy, Jim;

Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg

Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; Jame s Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Co rkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen;

Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Kati e Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matt

Miller; Matthew Nardotti; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil

Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard Parker; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson;

Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel;

Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo

Subject: NEMA transformer section comments regard ing DOE negotiated rulemaking process and

analysis for distribution transformers

TO: Richard Parker, Brian Coffey, MVDT/LF Committee, LVDT Committee, NEMA Members, DOE

The attached comments are offered to the DOE, Navigant, LBL and the Committee members concerning

the negotiated rulemaking process for distribution transformer energy efficiency standards.

The basic points presented in the comments are:

1. We need to make sure that the analysis results prov ided by Navigant and LBL ar e validated

against know data from the manufacturers and users at EACH step of the analysis.

2. Any efficiency levels supported by the committees must provide for the opportunity for multiple

designs, materials and suppliers to meet those levels cost effectively.

3. Detailed technical analysis questions and com m ents were provided to the facilitator and

consultant directly from the manufacturers.

4. The consultants need to perform sensitivity analyses to better understand what variables are

driving the results of the analysis.

5. The efficiency levels selected by the committees should not disadvantage the small and

mediu m

‐ sized transformer manufacturers.

More detailed comments and recommendations are provided in the attached document.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please let me know if you have any

questions.

Best regards,

John

John F. Caskey, CEM

Assistant Vice President, Industry Operations

National Electrical Manufacturers Assoc. (NEMA)

1300 North 17th Street - Suite 1752

Rosslyn, VA 22209

john.caskey@nema.org

703-841-3233 Voice

703-841-3333 FAX

703-350-6886 CellRegister now at http://www.nema.org/illuminations for NEMA's 85th annual meeting, Illuminations

Weekend, held October 28 and 29 at The Mayflower Renaissance Hotel in Washington, D.C.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 12


                              PAGING NETWORK, INC.

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


   
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months Ended       Six Months Ended
                                                        June 30,                June 30,
                                                  --------------------    --------------------
                                                    1997        1996        1997        1996
                                                  --------    --------    --------    --------
                                                 (Restated)              (Restated)  
<S>                                               <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>      
Earnings:
  Loss before extraordinary item ..............   $(31,963)   $(18,532)   $(69,277)   $(30,638)
  Fixed charges, less interest capitalized ....     44,376      34,785      87,836      69,248
                                                  --------    --------    --------    --------
     Earnings .................................   $ 12,413    $ 16,253    $ 18,559    $ 38,610
                                                  ========    ========    ========    ========


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense, including interest   
    capitalized................................   $ 39,767    $ 28,623    $ 78,122    $ 57,075
  Amortization of deferred financing costs ....      1,859       1,284       4,330       2,567
  Interest portion of rental expense ..........      5,750       4,878      11,384       9,606
                                                  --------    --------    --------    --------
     Fixed charges ............................   $ 47,376    $ 34,785    $ 93,836    $ 69,248
                                                  ========    ========    ========    ========


  Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ..........          -           -           -           -
                                                  ========    ========    ========    ========

  Deficiency of earnings available to cover
    fixed charges .............................   $(34,963)   $(18,532)   $(75,277)   $(30,638)
                                                  ========    ========    ========    ========
</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 270 Filed 04/20/10 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 270 Filed 04/20/10 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 270 Filed 04/20/10 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 270 Filed 04/20/10 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 270 Filed 04/20/10 Page 5 of 5
No. 57127.

protest 184938-K (New York).

#### Trans World International Service Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was shown that in reporting the one piece of rayon fabric numbered 12014 short, the examiner reported in excess in the same case one piece of silk fabric numbered 12014 and assessed duty not only upon the silk fabric in excess but also upon the rayon fabric not found in the case. It appeared that a salesman connected with the importer had erroneously stated in an affidavit that such rayon fabric was received. From the testimony it appeared that the goods which were short were never received by the importer. In view of the record presented, it was held that all duties taken upon the one piece of rayon fabric numbered 12014 should be refunded. The protest was sustained to this extent.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                                  P.F. CHANG'S
                               CHINA BISTRO, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

                          Entity                  Jurisdiction
                          ------                  ------------
                 PFCCB Scottsdale, LLC               Arizona
                 PFCCB Newport Beach, LLC            Arizona
                 P.F. Chang's III, LLC               Arizona
                 P.F. Chang's IV, LLC                Arizona
                 La Jolla Building III, L.P.         Arizona
                 PFCCB Loutex Joint Venture          Arizona
                 PFCCB NUCA, LLC                     Arizona
                 PFCCB Florida Joint Venture         Arizona
                 PFCCB Southeastern, LLC             Arizona
                 PFCCB Mid-Atlantic, LLC             Arizona
Order issued October 20, 2014

S

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

________________________________________

No. 05-13-01434-CR

No. 05-13-01435-CR

________________________________________

CAL MAURICE BUTLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

O R D E R

Before Justices O’Neill, Lang-Miers, and Brown

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the February 24, 2014 motion of 

John Tatum for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of 

the Court to remove John Tatum as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the Clerk of 

the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Cal Maurice Butler, TDCJ 

No. 1427407, Clements Unit, 9601 Spur 591, Amarillo, Texas, 79107-9606.

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O’NEILL

JUSTICE
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 9, 2024

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 23

- 01048

- CV
JASON DOUGLAS, CHERY L DOUGLAS AND ALL OCCUPANTS O F 6616 LAKE MEADOW LAN E, SACHSE, TEXAS 750 48 , Appellants V. CHAU DANG AND LAURA NGUYEN , Appellees
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 23

- 01746

- C

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices P artida

- Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Miskel Before the Court is appellants’ March 28, 2024 agreed motion to dismiss this
appeal. We grant appellants’ motion and dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.
42.1.

231048f.p05 /Emily Miskel/ EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JASON DOUGLAS, CHERYL DOUGLAS AND ALL OCCUPANTS OF 6616 LAKE MEADOW LANE, SACHSE, TEXAS 75048, Appellants

No. 05

- 23

- 01048

- CV V.

CHAU DANG AND LAURA NGUYEN, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 23

- 01746

- C. Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel. Justices Partida

- Kipness and Nowell participati ng.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 9 th day of April
, 2024

.
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 7 to
Registration Statement No. 333-35000 of Hartford Life Insurance Company
Separate Account Three on Form N-4, of our report dated February 19, 2003 of
Hartford Life Insurance Company relating to the financial statements as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, and of our report dated
February 21, 2003 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account Three
relating to the financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31,
2002, appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of
such Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the headings
"Experts" in such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
October 6, 2003
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of CEO and CFO Pursuant to**


**18
      U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**as
      Adopted Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Anthracite Capital, Inc.
      (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      Christopher A. Milner, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James
      J.
      Lillis, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/
                Christopher A. MilnerName:
                Christopher A. MilnerTitle:
                Chief Executive OfficerDate:
                May 15, 2008/s/
                James J. LillisName:
                James J. LillisTitle:
                Chief Financial OfficerDate:
                May 15, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            2224
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           56636
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  5775
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       7741
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           24400
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             24358
<LOANS>                                         196394
<ALLOWANCE>                                        750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  300868
<DEPOSITS>                                      203099
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               3080
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                       94643
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  300868
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  11788
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2741
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 14529
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                9122
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9122
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             5407
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    (115)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   2079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3629
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        3629
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2284
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.73
<LOANS-NON>                                        841
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   398
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    841
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   874
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        8
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  750
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               750
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IIA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 85

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 18, 1999

Received

JOINT RESOLUTION

Appointing the day for the convening of the second session

of the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HJ 85 RDS

1 SECTION 1. DAY FOR CONVENING OF SECOND SESSION OF

2 ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS.

3 The second regular session of the One Hundred Sixth

4 Congress shall begin at noon on Monday, January 24,

5 2000.

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL SESSION PRIOR TO CONVENING.

7 If the Speaker of the House of Representatives and

8 the Majority Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after con9 sultation with the Minority Leader of the House of Rep10 resentatives and the Minority Leader of the Senate, deter11 mine that it is in the public interest for the Members of

12 the House of Representatives and the Senate to reassem13 ble prior to the convening of the second regular session

14 of the One Hundred Sixth Congress as provided in section

15 1—

16 (1) the Speaker and Majority Leader shall so

17 notify their respective Members; and

18 (2) Congress shall reassemble at noon on the

19 second day after the Members are so notified.

Passed the House of Representatives November 18,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
*Larry G. Massanari has been appointed to serve as Acting Commissioner of

Social Security, and is substituted as appellee under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2074

___________

Sandra S. Trammell, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Larry G. Massanari, Acting *

Commissioner, Social Security * [UNPUBLISHED]

Administration,**

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 4, 2001

Filed: May 10, 2001

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In June 1996, Sandra S. Trammell sought disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income, complaining of tachycardia, gastritis, shortness of
-2-

breath, fatigue, weakness, chest pain, and anxiety. After a hearing, an administrative

law judge (ALJ) determined Trammell was not disabled because she did not have a

severe impairment or combination of impairments within the meaning of the

regulations. The Appeals Council later denied Trammell's request for review, after

considering records of Trammell's treating physician, some of which predated, but were

not submitted before, the ALJ's decision.

After Trammell commenced this federal court action and the parties filed cross

motions for summary judgment, the district court granted judgment in favor of the

Commissioner. Trammell appeals.

Having reviewed the record, including relevant evidence submitted to the

Appeals Council, we are convinced Trammell met her burden of showing she had

impairments which would have had more than a minimal effect on her ability to work,

and for which, contrary to the ALJ's belief, she received ongoing treatment. See

Nguyen v. Chater, 75 F.3d 429, 430-31 (8th Cir. 1996) (claimant bears burden of

establishing she has severe impairment; sequential evaluation process may be

terminated for lack of severe impairment only when claimant's impairments would have

no more than minimal effect on her ability to work). Accordingly, we reverse the grant

of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. On remand, the ALJ should

proceed with the sequential evaluation process and determine whether Trammell could

return to her former work, and if not, whether there were any jobs in the national

economy she could perform. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2000) (discussing

five-step sequential evaluation process). Other arguments advanced by Trammell's

counsel have little to do with the facts of this case, and do not merit further discussion.

We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1490 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 22 ) IV-B-2 3 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 8/4/200811:51:46

AM Sheet 22 of 273P. 2

SIT E VISI T REPOR T TO : FROM : Projec t

Fil e Reinforce dPlasti c Composite s NESHA P Keith Barnett DATE : Decembe r 18,200 2 SUBJECT : Sit e Visi t

-- - Aqu aGlass , Adamsvill e T N I . Purpos e Th e purpos e ofthi s visi t

wa s t o collec t

additiona l informatio n o n th e ope n moldin g processe s use db y Aqu aGlass , with emphasi s o n determinin g th e feasibility o f installin g permanen t

tota l enclosure s a

t thi s facility . II . Plac e an dDat e Aqu aGlas s Corporatio n 32 0 Industria l Par

k Roa d Adamsville , T N 3831 0 January 15,200 2 III . Aqu aGlas s ha s requeste dth e informatio n obtaine di n thi s sit e visi t b e treate da s confidentia l busines s information . Th e complet e repor t i s containe di n th e confidentia l file s for thi s project .
IA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 66

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States restoring

religious freedom.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 15, 1999

Mr. ISTOOK introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States restoring religious freedom.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

•HJ 66 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God ac3 cording to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United

4 States nor any State shall establish any official religion,

5 but the people’s right to pray and to recognize their reli6 gious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, in7 cluding schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United

8 States nor any State shall require any person to join in

9 prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers,

10 discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a

11 benefit on account of religion.’’.

Æ
April 3, 1962

No. 66674. — Suit 5071.

#### Nord Light, Inc. *v.*United States.

O.D. 2227 reversed December 18, 1961. O.A.D. 786.
No. 54504.

#### Union Brokerage Co. *v.*United States,

protest 151553-K (Pembina).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 51874.

#### Davis-Grossman Glove Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 823936-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.