alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

                              SARBANES-OXLEY CERT

                            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 SkyWay Communications Holding
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending April 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jamie Kalimi, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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; and

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

/s/ Jamee Kalimi
    Jamee Kalimi
    Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
    As of April 30, 2003
```
## Accepted: RTR Bins 1 and 2 -- EPA / OMB Meeting Fri 08/27/2010 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM Location: Conf. No. -- (919) 541-4332 RTP Conference Room -- D201
"Higgins, Cortney" has accepted this meeting invitation
Required: A nn Johnson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Brenda Shine/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, chiggins@OMB.eop.gov, Dave Guinnup/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Elaine Manning/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Eric Ginsburg/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan
No. 49101.

#### Protest 103105-K of Asiatic Petroleum Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The evidence disclosed that the total net weight was 3,138,782 pounds and that an affidavit of shortage was timely filed by the plaintiff as required by Article 812, Customs Regulations of 1937. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained to this extent.
Before the Third Division,

August 1, 1950

No. 54588.

#### Chong Sing & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 753801-G, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited, the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained as follows: (1) Bak hop, lotus nuts, sui sit, yuk chuk, wai san, sar sum, lo hon qua, mok qua, and yuen yuk assessed at 35 percent ad valorem under paragraph 775 and 752, or at 50 percent under paragraph 774 as vegetables or fruits, prepared, or at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as drugs, advanced, stipulated to be the same as the merchandise passed upon in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372), were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as crude drugs; (2) a portion of the merchandise, namely 2.2 percent thereof by weight, assessed as milled rice at *2}i*cents per pound under paragraph 727, similar to that the subject of Abstract 48704, was held dutiable at five-eighths of 1 cent per pound under said paragraph as broken rice; (3) lily buds classified as vegetables in their natural state under paragraph 774, similar to those involved in Abstract 29022, were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 775 as vegetables, prepared or preserved; and (4) fungus assessed at 50 percent under paragraph 774 as vegetables in their *251natural state similar to those involved in *Quong Yu Wo*v. *United States*(68 Treas. Dec. 669, T. D. 48003) was held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 775 as vegetables, prepared or preserved.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1234 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to provide for 

expedited project implementation relating to the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2017 

Mr. NELSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

to provide for expedited project implementation relating 

to the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Everglades for the 

5 Next Generation Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1234 IS

1 SEC. 2. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION 

2 PLAN. 

3 Section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development 

4 Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–541; 114 Stat. 2684) is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and subject 

7 to paragraph (3)’’ after ‘‘subsection (b) or (c)’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(3) EXPEDITED PROJECT IMPLEMENTA10 TION.—After completing a project implementation 

11 report prepared in accordance with subsections (f) 

12 and (h), the Secretary may carry out, without any 

13 further congressional authorization— 

14 ‘‘(A) any project identified in the Plan for 

15 which a project implementation report is com16 pleted that is in accordance with an integrated 

17 delivery schedule approved by the Chief of En18 gineers and the South Florida Water Manage19 ment District, in consultation with the South 

20 Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, 

21 subject to the condition that the report is com22 pleted not later than 5 years after the date of 

23 enactment of this paragraph; and 

24 ‘‘(B) any group of projects under the Plan 

25 that the Secretary determines will provide re26 gional or watershed ecosystem or water supply 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1234 IS

1 benefits if the group of projects is constructed 

2 in accordance with a project implementation re3 port approved by the Chief of Engineers and 

4 the South Florida Water Management District, 

5 in consultation with the South Florida Eco6 system Restoration Task Force, not later than 

7 5 years after the date of enactment of this 

8 paragraph.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
|                                                                                    |   | Year      Ended December 31, |    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|---------|
|                                                                                    |   | 2004                         |    | 2005 |   | 2006 |   |   2007 |   |   2008 |   |
| EARNINGS                                                                                |   |                    |    |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income      Before Income Taxes                                                         |   | $                            | 204,837 |   | $ | 228,082 |   | $ | 197,273 |   | $ |  204,394 |   | $ |  190,133 |   |
| Fixed      Charges (as below)                                                           |   |                         | 139,421 |   |   | 133,293 |   |   | 142,388 |   |   |  161,849 |   |   | 164,660 |   |
| Total      Earnings                                                                     |   | $                            | 344,258 |   | $ | 361,375 |   | $ | 339,661 |   | $ |  366,243 |   | $  | 354,793 |   |
|                                                                                    |   |                         |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| FIXED      CHARGES                                                                      |   |                         |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest      Expense                                                                   |   | $                            | 69,071  |   | $ | 65,041 |   | $ | 72,723 |   | $ |  80,034 |   | $  | 89,851 |   |
| Credit      for Allowance for Borrowed Funds Used         During Construction |   |                         | 1,750   |   |   | 4,352 |   |   | 7,465 |   |   |  5,315 |   |   | 4,609 |   |
| Estimated      Interest Element in Lease Rentals                                        |   |                         | 68,600  |   |   | 63,900 |   |   | 62,200 |   |   |  76,500 |   |   |  70,200 |   |
| Total Fixed      Charges                                                                |   | $                            | 139,421 |   | $ | 133,293 |   | $ | 142,388 |   | $ |  161,849 |   | $ |  164,660 |   |
|                                                                                    |   |                         |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed      Charges                                                 |   |                         | 2.46    |   |   | 2.71 |   |   | 2.38 |   |   |  2.26 |   |   | 2.15 |   |
|                                                                                    |   |                         |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
No. 50918.

#### Protests 42045-K/89611, etc., of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago).

*233Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
# C_2016335EN.01003802.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2016 — Ömer Altun and Others, Absa NV and Others v Openbaar Ministerie

(Case C-359/16)

(2016/C 335/52)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA

Appellants:

Respondent: Openbaar Ministerie

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Can an E101 certificate issued under Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (1) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as applicable before its repeal by Article 96(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, be annulled or disregarded by a court other than that of the sending Member State if the facts which are submitted to its scrutiny support the conclusion that the certificate was obtained or invoked fraudulently?

1

2

---

(1)  (OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1).

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).

2

---
No. 63604.

protest 58/14329 (New York).

#### Herman H. Sticht Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*433Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of statiguns and parts thereof the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Herman H. Sticht Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 173, C.D. 1979), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NUMBER 13-21-00001-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE DERUITER RANCH, LLC

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva

Order Per Curiam

On January 4, 2021, relator DeRuiter Ranch, LLC (DeRuiter) filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus through which it asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in 

preventing DeRuiter from obtaining discovery pertaining to “public use” in a statutory 

condemnation proceeding. See TEX. UTIL. CODE ANN. § 181.004 (“A gas or electric 

corporation has the right and power to enter on, condemn, and appropriate the land, rightof-way, easement, or other property of any person or corporation.”); TEX. CONST. art. I, 

§17(a) (“No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to 

public use without adequate compensation being made . . . .”). 
2

The Court requests that the real party in interest, Permian Highway Pipeline LLC, 

or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response 

to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date 

of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

6th day of January, 2021.
### Regulatory Evaluation 

# L_G \$" 

# -.[,f --D 45 

# -4() Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 

### AD

### Jfyou make changes to the values in 

### the table below. you must ensure the totals update accordingly. 

## if they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the change d cell.
Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ 

# u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access , testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

### Paint 

### 1.0**~** 

### R::: ::o $10 'h <J'i.()O 

## 9 :,**,,~5.UO** 

# s iJ 1)0 

# ,. ·' 0.00 \: 

### fJ!Jil 

# : I**~** (l,(J{J I 

### $ 

### o.on ') ( '.'.10 I I 

# " I) {i!' I 

# " ll.(J !) 

# .. n.Ctfl i i 

### s {' uo I 

# " 0.00 I**~-** 

## u.oo I I 

## s O

.O:i I 

### "' 0.00 I ,. !} il{ j 

### ' 

### I i 'il (I I)!J I '!. 0 00**.~** 

### n ou I I $ 

## oon**(~~** tJ.OfJ 

## ,, tLOf' 

### I I 

# s 0.0() I $ 0.00 c:.. 

### iJ.GO I I 

### 5 I)()()**~** 0.00 

# " O.O'J I 

# s ()

. ill q·



# - 0.00 (' -' 0.00 '**~~.{)(** '1. i;

.U!l il (10 I ::.. •()( 

# " 0 0{! IJ.till " li 0( 

### 0 (l\1 \ OJHI**~** O.W 

## o.o!f Tiu I I 

### ... t:UC O.f\0

. ll ( l!i ! I 0 fli' GJ;O 

### t::oft I**~** 

## r.on ) 

## ono o un I 

# s !) 

## no ..; 

## o.or: '>

- (J.0\1 I**~** 0.00 

# ,. , , {) .00 (j

.llfl The known number ofproducts 

### in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for 

### U.S. fleet: $855 Costs covered under warranty 

### (if 

### known) $
Oo-Cooditioo Costs: Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) testing, and close- replacement) up) ...: 

### 0.0'1 I I $ Oi • O I 

# s () 1111 

### I <; O.D0 I 

## s o.ou I 

# ., 0 (J\) i $ (I.Ofl I**~** 

### l}{)(i 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious

. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

### Executive Order 12866: 

### Could the AD be considered a "significan t regulatory action"? 

# Q YES* 

# D NO 

# 121 *Explanation: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

### Is the AD significant? 

# G YES* 

# D NOI2] *Explanation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

### Will the AD have a significant economic i mpact on a substantial number ofsmall entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. 

# G YESO NOI2] Explanation: 

### This AD only 

### affects 9 US 

### registered gliders. Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

### This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated 

### in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransportation? 

# G YES* 

# D NOI2] *Explanation:
1

Brown, Kelly

From: Sasser, Erika

Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 5:05 PM

To: Frey, Nathan J.

Cc: Stewart, Lori; Wesson, Karen; Scavo, Kimber; Curry, Bridgid; Dougherty, Joseph-J; Rush, 

Alan; Henigin, Mary; Hemby, James; Mathias, Scott; Brown, Kelly; Weatherhead, Darryl; 

Langdon, Robin

Subject: Ozone NAAQS Proposal RIA--EO12866_O3-NAAQS-RIN2060-AP38-NPR-RIA_20141125

Attachments: EO12866_O3-NAAQS-RIN2060-AP38-NPR-RIA_20141125.pdf

Nathan, 

Attached please find a final version of the O3 NAAQS RIA reflecting changes made in response to interagency comments. 

Please let me know if there are any questions about these materials. 

Thanks, 

Erika
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS48065 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000050217
<NAME> INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,748,460
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,790
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         139,350
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       129,466
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,023,066
<COMMON>                                       324,537
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            440,747
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 767,926
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     59,135
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           627,893
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              19,200
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 548,912
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,023,066
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      821,256
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            80,190
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     561,555
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     641,745
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        179,511
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               9,535
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 189,046
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        39,899
<NET-INCOME>                                   149,147
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      3,119
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  146,028
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       214,243
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       38,395
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         249,472
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 57233. protests 822223-G, etc. (New York).

#### Amchina Fur Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

M ollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his' dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
<ASX version="3.0">	<ENTRY>		<REF HREF="mms://multimedia.mcpa.virginia.edu/911/hearing10/2004041402_high.asf" />	</ENTRY></ASX>
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                    EXHIBIT 12
                             INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
             Computation of Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                            (in thousands except ratio data)
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Year Ended December 31,
                                                     ----------------------------------------------------
                                                       1995       1996       1997       1998       1999
<S>                                                  <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Fixed Charges:
  Interest on First Mortgage Bonds. . . . . . . .    $ 43,410   $ 41,209   $ 39,678   $ 35,910   $ 31,442
  Interest on Other Long-term Debt. . . . . . . .      23,564     20,100     21,064     27,457     38,623
  Interest on Short-term Debt . . . . . . . . . .       2,003      2,982      3,248      4,903      9,207
  Miscellaneous Interest Charges. . . . . . . . .       3,472      3,262      3,187      3,113      6,754
  Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals . .      82,700     82,600     79,700     79,300     73,800
       Total Fixed Charges. . . . . . . . . . . .    $155,149   $150,153   $146,877   $150,683   $159,826

Earnings:
  Net Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $141,092   $157,153   $146,740   $ 96,628   $ 32,776
  Plus Federal Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . .      55,990     76,899     74,223     47,210     18,866
  Plus State Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . .       7,058      9,270      7,519      4,938     (7,352)
  Plus Fixed Charges (as above) . . . . . . . . .     155,149    150,153    146,877    150,683    159,826
       Total Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $359,289   $393,475   $375,359   $299,459   $204,116

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. . . . . . . .        2.31       2.62       2.55       1.98       1.27
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60178

Summary Calendar

RODGER L. MANN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF MOSS POINT, MISSISSIPPI; MOSS POINT

FIRE DEPARTMENT; MOSS POINT COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT; C. W. SEATON, 

Alderman; MICHAEL A. MIDDLETON, Alderman; 

GLIN C. COLVIN, Alderman; CHARLES L. MOLDEN, 

Alderman; J. R. SPILLERS, Alderman; ED HUDSON, 

Chief of the City of Moss Point Fire Department; 

MISSISSIPPI MUNICIPAL INSURANCE,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

1:99-CV-506-RG

August 16, 2001

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

PER CURIAM:*

Rodger Mann appeals an adverse summary judgment in his action against the

City of Moss Point, et al. Our review of the record, briefs, and dispositive law

discloses no error in the trial court’s disposition. Accordingly, on the facts as detailed,

authorities cited and comprehensive analysis made by the district court in its

Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, dated January 30, 2001 and filed January 31, 2001, the decision appealed

is AFFIRMED.
Part 2

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT 

No Name Description Rule Attribute Combination

37 Pd 12 Zero Balance Validation

The Dollar Amount for specific USSGL accounts must be $0 in period 12. Fail

Reporting 

Period

USSGL 

ACCOUNT 

NUMBER

DOLLAR 

AMOUNT

=12 =109000 <>0=12 =209010 <>0=12 =424000 <>0=12 =439500 <>0=12 =299100 <>0

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Validations - Detail

Bulletin No. 2018-05 DRAFT VII VDR - 1