alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20010109085100/http://www.census.gov:80/industry/ma36l...

MA36L -- ELECTRIC LIGHTING FIXTURES

1994

Contact person: (301) 457-4842

Issued October 4, 1995

REVISED October 10, 1995

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

 During 1994, the total value of shipments of electric lighting fixtures was $5,475.5

million. This represents a 7 percent increase

from the 1993 total value of $5,115.0 million. The 1994 figure includes residential type

fixtures, $1,033.9 million, an increase of

4 percent from 1993; commercial and institutional type fixtures, $2,592.1 million, an increase of

8 percent from 1993; industrial

type fixtures, $533.0 million, an increase of 8 percent from 1993; and outdoor lighting equipment,

$1,316.6 million, an increase

of 7 percent from 1993.

Vehicular lighting equipment data were discontinued in 1992.

Table 1. VALUE OF SHIPMENTS OF ELECTRIC LIGHTING FIXTURES: 1985 TO 1994

(Millions of dollars)

Product

 code Product description 1994 1993 1992 1991 

1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985

 Electric lighting fixtures/1 5,475.5 5,115.0 4,720.1 4,426.0 

4,798.2 4,738.0 4,571.8 4,417.8 4,102.8 3,913.8

36451 Residential type................... 1,033.9 996.5 898.2 760.9 

827.6 858.5 877.1 916.1 844.9 786.8

36462 Commercial and institutional

 type, except spotlight........... 2,592.1 2,390.8 2,221.2 2,164.8 

2,379.7 2,316.7 2,242.7 2,094.8 1,940.2 1,832.3

36463 Industrial type.................... 533.0 493.4 442.1 446.4 

529.4 504.6 430.6 419.1 400.9 389.2

36470 Vehicular lighting equipment....... (NA) (NA) (NA) 1,616.1 

1,620.7 1,570.5 1,564.4 1,368.5 1,222.4 1,001.2

36485 Outdoor lighting equipment......... 1,316.6 1,234.2 1,158.6 1,053.9 

1,061.5 1,058.2 1,021.4 987.8 916.8 905.5

r/ Revised by 5 percent or more from previously published data.

1/ Excludes Product Class 36470, Vehicular Lighting Equipment, which will not be available after

1991. (NA) Not available.

Table 2. QUANTITY AND VALUE OF SHIPMENTS OF ELECTRIC LIGHTING FIXTURES: 1994 AND 1993

(Quantity in 1,000 units; value in $1,000)

 No.

Product of 

1994 1993

 code Product description cos. Quantity 

Value Quantity Value

36451 -- Electric lighting fixtures, residential type..................... 121 (X) 

1,033,886 (X) 996,546

 Incandescent (excluding PAR lampholders and

 floodlights):

 Interior (including bath or kitchen):

36451 11 Ceiling or pendant......................................... 76 b/16,725 

b/331,947 17,252 a/323,458

36451 13 W ll b k t 64 b/3 727
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Resolve a Duplicate Check

To resolve a duplicate check, complete the following steps:

1. Click Cancel to cancel the duplicate check. A Login ID and Password dialog box appears.

2. Click Accept to continue processing the check. Click Edit MICR to correct the Magnetic Ink 

Character Recognition (MICR) line as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Duplicate Check Detected

• The Login ID and Password dialog box only appears if a Check Capture Supervisor 

(CCS) or Check Capture Lead Operator (CCLO) is accepting a duplicate check for 

a Check Capture Operator (CCO). If a CCLO scanned the check, additional 

authorization is not required.

• A CCS or CCLO must authorize a MICR line code correction.

• As the CCS or CCLO, you can opt to make a MICR code line correction. If you do, 

look at the MICR line image closely to ensure all the characters are correctly entered 

in the code line Correction box.

3. Click Cancel or Cancel All. A Transaction cancelled successfully dialog box appears.

Click Cancel to cancel one duplicate check. Click Cancel All to cancel all pending 

checks in the batch.

4. Click OK. The Check Scan – Perform Check Scan page appears.

Application Tips

Application Tip
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

• Click Previous to return to the previous page.

• Click Return to Home to return to the OTCnet Home page.

Additional Buttons
|                      |
|----------------------|
|                      |  |
| /s/ Karen M. Bohn    |   |
| Karen M. Bohn        |
|                 |   |
| /s/ Lorna P. Gleason |   |
| Lorna P. Gleason     |
|                 |   |
| /s/ Jean B. Keffeler |   |
| Jean B. Keffeler     |
|                 |   |
| /s/ Robert McReavy   |   |
| Robert McReavy       |   |
|                 |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0001052743
<NAME>                        FRONTLINE CAPITAL GROUP
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                  US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         108,318
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,335
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,288
<PP&E>                                         295,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (20,285)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 657,749
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,784
<BONDS>                                        303,147
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           347
<OTHER-SE>                                     278,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   657,749
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,573
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,275
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,003
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,651)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       190
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (37,137)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,648
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (40,311)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.27)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,806,742
<SECURITIES>                                14,366,506
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,222,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (479,520)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,493,252
<PP&E>                                       3,981,977
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,537,447)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,362,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,837,588
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,818
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,489,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,362,030
<SALES>                                      5,502,786
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,502,786
<CGS>                                        4,046,610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,505,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,690
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (812,549)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (18,250)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (830,799)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)


</TABLE>
CASE DIGEST: Ass’n of Civilian Technicians, Ky. Long Rifle Chapter 83, 

73 FLRA 812 (2024)

The Arbitrator issued an award finding that the Agency did not violate the parties’ 

collective-bargaining agreement; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); or § 7116(a)(7) of the Federal 

Service Labor-Management Relations Statute1 (the Statute) when it implemented revised 

regulations and promptly separated a technician with a pending disability-retirement

claim. The Union filed an exception on contrary-to-law grounds. The Authority denied 

the Union’s contrary-to-law exception because it did not establish any deficiencies in the 

award. 

This case digest is a summary of a decision issued by the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority, with a short description of the issues and facts of the case. Descriptions 

contained in this case digest are for informational purposes only, do not constitute legal 

precedent, and are not intended to be a substitute for the opinion of the Authority.

1 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(7).
EGU GHG NSPS - Submittal #4

RobertJ Wayland to

:

Frey, Nathan J., Higgins, Cortney

C: Nick Hutson, Kevin Culligan, fellner.christian, Mary Johnson

From: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>, "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Nick Hutson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, fellner.christian@epa.gov,

Mary Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Attached find 2010 data for all the combined cycle units that came on-line in the last five years (i.e., 2006-

2010). Of the 74 units, 63 are reporting annual CO2 emission rates of less than 1000 lb/ MWh. Of the 

remaining 11 units, we believe that many are not reporting their full electric output. Under current 

reporting rules, if there is no supplemental firing (e.g. additional fuel burned) in the heat recovery steam 

generator (HRSG), it not necessary to report the generation associated with the HRSG. Since this 

represents a significant portion of generation, most, if not all of the units would meet a 1000 lb/MWh

standard once they began reporting this information. We are doing additional work to confirm which units 

are only reporting data from the combustion turbine. We believe that the data from the 63 units already 

shows that units covering a range of sizes, types of operation and location (e.g., ambient temperature and 

elevation) can meet a standard of 1000 lb/MWh.

new combined cycle units.xlsx 

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D.

Leader, Energy Strategies Group

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Mail Code D243-01

RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-1045

Cell: (919) 306-2290

Fax: (919) 541-5450

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

*********************************************************

DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

*********************************************************
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Noe Lopez Trevino

, * From the 42nd District Court

of Taylor County

Trial Court No. 26485A

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 1 0 3

- CR * April 1 8 , 2019

The Sta te of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.

, Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4024 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4024

    To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enable secure and 
trustworthy technology through other transaction contracting authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2024

Mr. Peters (for himself and Mr. Daines) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enable secure and 
trustworthy technology through other transaction contracting authority.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Better Enabling Secure and 
Trustworthy Technology for the Homeland Act'' or the ``BEST Technology 
for the Homeland Act''.

SEC. 2. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACQUISITION PILOT PROGRAM EXTENSION.

    Section 831 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 391) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph 
        (1), by striking ``September 30, 2024'' and inserting 
        ``September 30, 2031''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)(1), in the matter preceding 
        subparagraph (A), by striking ``September 30, 2024'' and 
        inserting ``September 30, 2031''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                             EARLE M. JORGENSEN COMPANY

                          STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF RATIO
                            OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                               (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                         YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                           -------------------------------------------------
                                                               2000               1999             1998
                                                           --------------     -------------    -------------
<S>                                                        <C>                <C>              <C>
Income before income taxes                                   $25,796             $26,028         $ 25,708

Fixed charges to be added back to earnings:
   Interest and debt expense                                  42,231              41,751           41,521
   Rentals (one-third of all rent and related costs
     charged to income)                                        5,524               5,381            5,804
                                                           --------------     -------------    -------------

     Total fixed charges                                      47,755              47,132           47,325
                                                           --------------     -------------    -------------

Earnings before income taxes and fixed charges               $73,551             $73,160         $ 73,033
                                                           ==============     =============    =============


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                              1.54                1.55             1.54
                                                           ==============     =============    =============
</TABLE>
Exhibit
      10.23

    

      Summary
        of Loan Agreement

    

     

    Loan
      from Hanting Rural Credit Cooperative

     

    On
      November 10, 2006, Weifang entered into a loan agreement with Hanting Rural
      Credit Cooperative, for a loan in the principal amount of $396,962. The interest
      rate for this loan is 8.19% per annum and the loan has a maturity date of
      November 8, 2009. Weifang plans to use the loan to finance the working capital.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARON BRIGNAC

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0914 LKK CMK 

vs.

J.S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s May 12, 2005 request to voluntarily

dismiss this action. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to dismiss this action be granted and;

2. Plaintiff’s action be dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

Case 2:04-cv-00914-LKK -CMK Document 34 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 18, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00914-LKK -CMK Document 34 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2
Order entered January 1 9 , 2017

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 01168

- CR

RICKY RAMON HUGHES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 065922



### O RDER

Before the Court is appe llant’s January 17, 2017 unopposed second motion to extend

time to file appellant’s brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED . Appellant’s brief shall b e filed

by February 14, 2017. We caution appellant that further requests for extension of time will be

disfavored.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1


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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P.
for the period ended June 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marlene Debel,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, 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; and

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





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V


                              By:  /s/ MARLENE DEBEL
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Marlene Debel *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: August 10, 2007
_____________________

* Marlene Debel functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### William J. PERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 01-1106, 01-1107, 01-1108.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted June 18, 2001.*

Decided June 18, 2001.

Before MANION, ROVNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

*

 After an examination of the briefs and the records, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, these appeals are submitted on the briefs and the records. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

ORDER

The Reverend Doctor William Perry appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 of three lawsuits relating to the decision of the Board of School Directors of the Milwaukee Public Schools to deny charter school status for Perry’s “Elimika Institute of Cognitive Intelligence.” We affirm.

By the time Perry filed the complaints at issue in this appeal, he had already filed 16 lawsuits during the summer of 2000, all of which had been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. Although his complaints in the three lawsuits on appeal are incoherent, it seems Perry believes that his institute was unlawfully denied charter school status, and that the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction did not prevent or adequately sanction a private school that allegedly fired Perry based on his religious beliefs. In dismissing these actions prior to service, the district court first reasoned that Perry had “failed to articulate a valid statutory or constitutional basis” for any of his claims. Next, the court concluded that the suits were frivolous because the complaints “contain allegations so bizarre, rambling, and disjointed as to defy interpretation.” The court additionally barred Perry, pursuant to the dictates of *Support Systems Int’l, Inc. v. Mack,*45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir.*4071995), from filing farther cases or pleadings in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The court then determined that, despite the fact that Perry’s lawsuits were frivolous, he deserved *informa pauperis*status on appeal.

As a preliminary matter, we note that the district court should not have granted Perry *in forma pauperis*status after concluding that the lawsuits were frivolous. *Lee v. Clinton,*209 F.3d 1025, 1027 (7th Cir.2000). Nonetheless, Perry’s arguments on appeal are no less incoherent than the allegations in his complaints. He offers no cogent argument, legal or otherwise, challenging the district court’s dismissal of his suits or the court’s order barring the filing of any future lawsuits pursuant to *Mack,*45 F.3d at 186. Yet even pro se litigants must put forward in an appellate brief some comprehensible legal argument regarding the district court’s decisions. *Mathis v. New York Life Ins.,*133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir.1998). Because Perry has provided no arguable reason to reverse the dismissal of his frivolous complaints, we affirm the district court’s judgments.

Affirmed
Petition for Commercial Drone I’m submitting my request for the ability for the use of a drone for the following use....
 I’m presently training pilots for the use of drones under the sport pilot minimum  As an existing pilot and instructor I can better serve the public as drone pilot  I’m experience in the conduct of a pilot regulations and operational needs of coordinating with the proper authorities  I would be operating with the realty and commercial mar kets George Grall (262) 378 - 9143