alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# STATE OF LOUISIANA



# COURT OF APPEAL, Fl,RSTCIRCUIT MELISSA A. RAIGAN VERSUS TROY C. RUSICH In Re: Troy C. Rusich, applying

Judicial District Court, 2022-10617. NO. 2022 CW 1353 

### MARCH 6, 2023 for supervisory writs, 22nd Parish of St. Tammany, No. BEFORE: WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# O\.C,{J DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT JEW AHP WIL
1

D'Agostino, Kathleen

From: DELONEY, SCOTT [SDELONEY@idem.IN.gov]

Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:50 PM

To: D'Agostino, Kathleen; sagoff, kendra; Aburano, Douglas

Cc: CALLAHAN, BRIAN

Subject: RE: ammonia and VOC emissions inventories

Attachments: winsum__allstates.cy.2007.csv; winsum IN cy 2007.xml

Thank you for exploring this matter proactively. We do find the attached emissions-related information for ammonia 

and organics to be representative for Indiana, the Central Indiana Region, as well as Indiana’s portion of the Louisville 

Area. As such, we request that it be considered a technical addendum to Indiana’s Request for Redesignation and 

Maintenance Plan for the Annual Fine Particle Standard for Central Indiana and Indiana’s potion of the Louisville Area. 

Although IDEM references 2008 as the base year for both the referenced submittals, the 2007 emissions data for 

ammonia and organics is deemed to be representative for 2008 as well. 

Please feel free to contact me if you need further clarification. Thanks. 

From: D'Agostino, Kathleen [mailto:dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:33 PM 

To: DELONEY, SCOTT; sagoff, kendra; Aburano, Douglas 

Subject: ammonia and VOC emissions inventories 

As we discussed, LADCO has Excel files on its web page that contain county level VOC and ammonia emissions 

inventories for 2007. I have attached the complete file as well as a file with only information for the Indianapolis 

counties. I would suggest looking over the Indianapolis specific file to ensure that it contains the appropriate data. I 

have also attached links for the inventory page (http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/current/index.php), the county 

specific file (http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/basecv8/annual/winsum__allstates.cy.2007.csv) and the inventory 

documentation (http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/basecv8/Base_C_Emissions_Documentation_Sept_12.pdf).
swam, (ABM 258

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TREASURY TAX & LOAN RATE OF INTEREST

The U.S. Treasury proposes raising the Treasury Tax and Loan rate to equal a weighted-average rate of
primary-dealer, general-collateral repurchase agreement transactions. This change will raise the cost of
TT&L balances to approximately 2 basis points under the Fed Funds rate.

This pricing level fails to recognize and incorporate the value of the TT&L _product’s imbedded option
and the inherent differences between this product’s characteristics and those of the referenced dealer
repurchase agreements. Unlike a transaction in which two dealers agree to a repurchase agreement trade
with identified amount and term when this action suits them both, with TT&L, the Treasury holds the
option of depositing or withdrawing balances at will. Participating banks must stand ready, often with
little or no warning, to accept new balances or to lose balances on any day, regardless of their present
funding requirements. When last-minute TT&L calls occur, the bank may suffer detriment by “wasting”
the resulting excess pledged collateral after balances have been withdrawn that, with more warning, could
have been deployed in another manner to obtain favorable-cost funding (such as acquiring local public
funds deposits).

The TT&L structure is one in which, practically speaking, banks have “sold” options to the Treasury.
Options have value, and banks and other market participants expect to be paid for selling them. The
present TT&L pricing at Fed Funds minus .25 incorporates such payment. Banks accept this price as fair
compensation for the option, for the associated uncertainty in managing funding and reserve positions,
and for the periodic collateral waste and opportunity loss. Moving the TT&L rate up as proposed would
eliminate this fair compensation and make TT&L considerably less attractive to banks.

Banking companies that carefully manage funding and collateral use will likely be substantially less
inclined to commit securities collateral consistently for uncertain balances at the proposed higher rate.
More attractive alternative funding will often exist. This company, for example, is consistently able to
buy (unsecured) Fed Funds 7 to 10 basis points below the Fed Effective Fed Funds rate.

CONCLUSION:

If the rate is increased as proposed, this bank will likely amend its TT&L involvement in some
combination of the following:
1. Convert to remittance option
2. Remain in note option, but:
a. Reduce participation (lower the cap and collateral)
b. Increase and decrease the cap and pledged collateral much more frequently
c. Release pledged securities and pledge loans instead

The Treasury Tax and Loan concept was created to prevent unduly large sums from Jeaving the banking
system on tax dates. The proposed higher rate would undoubtedly reduce banks’ ability to participate in
the program, and loss of this stabilizing factor would complicate the Federal Reserve’s open market
operations to preserve stable reserves and market rates in these periods.

Mary C. Weis, Senior Vice President
First Union Corporation/First Union National Bank
Charlotte, NC 28282
September 23, 1999
# C_2019004EN.01002101.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-34/16) (1)

(EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Specific support for the bovine and ovine meat sectors - On-site inspections - Physical verification of the animals - Quality of the inspections - Inspection report - Flat-rate correction - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - One-off correction)

(2019/C 4/29)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: initially, D. Kriaučiūnas, T. Orlickas and R. Krasuckaitė, and subsequently T. Orlickas and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

---
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with this Transition Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
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), as applicable, 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 result of operations of
          the Company at the dates and for the period indicated.

     This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Dated: February 8, 2007                    By:  /s/ Steven R. Blake
                                                -------------------
                                                Steven R. Blake
                                                Chief Financial Officer


                                       42
Exhibit 99.2
------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the quarterly  report of Retail  Highway.com,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  I, Michael Levine,
the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  Section 1350), that to the best of my
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.



Dated:  November 12, 2002                  s/Michael Levine
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Michael Levine, Chief Executive Officer
No. 52183.

protests 134925-K, etc. (New York).

#### Micro Sonic Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of record changer units similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Garrard Sales Corp.*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 39, C. A. D. 369). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 99.1   **Date:**January 26, 2007 **Contact:**Charles P. Huffman   **Release:**Immediately **Phone:**251-476-2720**EnergySouth, Inc. reports fiscal 2007 first quarter earnings and announces declaration ofdividend**The Board of Directors of EnergySouth, Inc., at a meeting held January 26, 2007, declared aquarterly dividend on the outstanding Common Stock of $0.23 per share, to be paid April 1, 2007to holders of record as of March 15, 2007.Net income for EnergySouth, Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 was $4,614,000, or$0.57 per diluted share, as compared to net income for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 of$4,485,000, or $0.56 per diluted share. The increase in earnings of $0.01 per share was due toincreased earnings from the Company’s Bay Gas subsidiary, which were partially offset byreduced earnings from the Company’s distribution business.Bay Gas’ earnings for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 were $0.19 per diluted share, anincrease of $0.03 per diluted share as compared to the same period last year. The increase inearnings was due primarily to increased revenues from short-term storage agreements. Under theshort-term agreements, available storage capacity is leased to customers on an interruptiblebasis, thereby optimizing the use of cavern capacity.Earnings per share from Mobile Gas’ distribution business for the quarter ended December 31,2006 were $0.36 per diluted share, a decrease of $0.02 per diluted share when compared to thesame prior-year period. Earnings would have increased $0.01 per diluted share except for thefact that the prior-year results included a one-time credit to operating expenses related topostemployment health insurance of approximately $0.03 per diluted share.Earnings from other business operations for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 were unchangedwhen compared to the same prior year period, with diluted earnings per share of $0.02 for thefirst fiscal quarters of each of 2007 and 2006.EnergySouth, Inc. is the holding company for a family of energy businesses. Mobile Gaspurchases, sells, and transports natural gas to residential, commercial, and industrialcustomers in Mobile, Alabama and surrounding areas. Mobile Gas also provides merchandisesales, service, and financing. EnergySouth Storage Services is the general partner of Bay GasStorage Company, a limited partnership that provides underground storage and delivery ofnatural gas for Mobile Gas and other customers. EnergySouth Services is the general partner ofSouthern Gas Transmission Company, which is engaged in the intrastate transportation of naturalgas.
 

 
**ENERGYSOUTH, INC.**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF HORIZON OFFSHORE INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,995
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,447
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,250
<PP&E>                                         136,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,652)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 189,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,594
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,119
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   189,034
<SALES>                                         52,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,922
<CGS>                                           38,747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,322
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,879
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,443
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,443
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
        

</TABLE>
Order entered January 2, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 00894 - CV ERIC DRAKE, Appellant V. SUNHEE PI , ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . CC - 09 - 01374 - E 

### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 30, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a brief. The clerk’s record has not been filed. Appellant’s brief will be due thirty days after the clerk’s record is filed. See T EX . R. A P P . P. 38.6(a)(1). Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion as premature

. /s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 28 9- CV P ETROGULF CORP . and Doug las Cameron Mc L eod,

Ap pe lla nts
v . MA GN UM PRO DU CI NG , L . P. ,

Appellee Fr om the 229th J udicial District Court, Duval County , Texas

Trial Court No. DC-08-65 Honora ble Alex W . Gabe rt, J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 13, 2008 DI SMI SSED Appellants have filed a motion to di smiss t his appea l. The motion contains a ce rtificate of service to appellee , and the a ppellee ha s not opposed the motion. Theref ore, w e g rant the motion and dismiss the appea l. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42 .1 (a )( 1) . Co sts of the app eal are tax e d a g a ins t
a pp e lla nts . PER C URI AM
Case 2:02-cv-04153-TJS Document 4 Filed 08/13/2002 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-04153-TJS Document 4 Filed 08/13/2002 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-04153-TJS Document 4 Filed 08/13/2002 Page 3 of 3
# C_2017104EN.01003201.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Tetsuji Shimizu

(Case C-684/16)

(2017/C 104/46)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV

Applicant:

Defendant: Tetsuji Shimizu

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (Directive 2003/88/EC) (1) or Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) preclude national legislation, such as Paragraph 7 of the Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal law on leave, ‘the BUrlG’), under which, as one of the methods of exercising the right to annual leave, an employee must apply for such leave with an indication of his preferred dates so that the leave entitlement does not lapse at the end of the relevant period without compensation and under which an employer is not required, unilaterally and with binding effect for the employee, to specify when that leave be taken by the employee within the relevant period? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (Directive 2003/88/EC) (1) or Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) preclude national legislation, such as Paragraph 7 of the Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal law on leave, ‘the BUrlG’), under which, as one of the methods of exercising the right to annual leave, an employee must apply for such leave with an indication of his preferred dates so that the leave entitlement does not lapse at the end of the relevant period without compensation and under which an employer is not required, unilaterally and with binding effect for the employee, to specify when that leave be taken by the employee within the relevant period?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
  Does this apply even where the employment relationship is between two private persons? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Does this apply even where the employment relationship is between two private persons?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

1

---
# C_2016343EN.01002201.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2016 — flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

(Case C-274/16)

(2016/C 343/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

In the case where passengers are transported on a flight which consists of two connecting flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airport, is the place of arrival of the second leg of the journey to be regarded as being the place of performance under Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012 (1) in the case where the claim which has been brought is directed against the air carrier which operated the first leg of the journey on which the irregularity took place and transport on the second leg of the journey was carried out by a different air carrier?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2018104EN.01003102.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Philip Morris Brands v EUIPO — Explosal (Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel)

(Case T-105/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel - Earlier international figurative mark Marlboro - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2018/C 104/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Brands Sàrl (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and M. Simandlova, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Explosal Ltd (Larnaca, Cyprus) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2016 (Case R 2775/2014-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Philip Morris and Explosal.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 January 2016 (Case R 2775/2014-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 January 2016 (Case R 2775/2014-1);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO and Explosal Ltd to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by Philip Morris Brands Sàrl. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO and Explosal Ltd to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by Philip Morris Brands Sàrl.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

1

---
In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Alloy Steel
International, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Gene Kostecki, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:

     (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/Gene Kostecki
Date: January 14, 2005                       By:________________________________
                                                 Gene Kostecki
                                                 Chief Executive Officer