alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet at December 31, 1997 and the Statement of Income for the year ended
December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000054496
<NAME> KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              43
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,369
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,715
<INVENTORY>                                     41,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,439
<PP&E>                                       3,616,283
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,051,108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,117,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          167,975
<BONDS>                                        684,128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,065,634
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,845
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,117,108
<SALES>                                        614,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               614,445
<CGS>                                          129,594
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  490,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,022
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 69,536
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,408
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,128
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,128
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions set forth
in SEC Release No. 34-47986]c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: April 18, 2006
    /s/ Daniel D. MaddoxDaniel D. MaddoxPrincipal Financial Officer
No. 50389.

#### Protests 54531-K, etc., of Jerome V. Detmer et al. (New York).

Opinion 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.
No. 56412.

protests 177876-K and 174136-K (B) (New York).

#### Heller Hope Co. and Henry Schwab Lapidary, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc. v. United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
No. 58527. —

protests 152944-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gramaphone Shops, Inc., and John H. Faunce, N. Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the paper coverings containing phonograph records the subject of *United States*v. *Radio Corp. of America, RCA Victor Division*(41 C. C. P. A. 137, C. A. D. 541), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.2


                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 of Patient Portal Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/ A (2) for the period ended June 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Thomas Hagan, Acting Financial Officer of the Company certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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.

Date: April 6, 2009


                                              /s/ Thomas Hagan
                                              Thomas Hagan
                                              Acting Chief Financial Officer




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5708] 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “The Old Order and the New: P.H. Emerson and Photography 1885-1895”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, California, from on or about March 27, 2007, until on or about July 8, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: February 26, 2007. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E7-3673 Filed 3-1-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TUYEN NGUYEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0655 LKK KJM PS

vs.

DAVID MARTIN,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By minute order filed May 23, 2005, this action was referred to the undersigned

for pretrial case management and all hearing dates before the district judge were vacated. Under

the status order filed June 9, 2004, the discovery and law and motion cut-offs had already passed

at the time this action was referred to the undersigned. The matter was therefore set for status

conference and the parties were directed to file status reports one week prior to the conference.

Plaintiff failed to appear at the status conference and failed to file a status report. 

Since the time plaintiff’s counsel withdrew and plaintiff was substituted in pro per in May 2005,

the file reflects no activity by plaintiff. It appears plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

lack of prosecution, without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00655-LKK -KJM Document 44 Filed 10/17/05 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

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

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

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 17, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

006

nguyen.57

Case 2:04-cv-00655-LKK -KJM Document 44 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIM ISAAC,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1707 KJM

vs.

MORGAN STANLEY DW, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Presently calendared for hearing on June 29, 2005 is defendant’s motion for

summary judgment and plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration. Good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment is dropped from the

June 29, 2005 calendar. Pending resolution of plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, no further

briefing on the motion for summary judgment shall be filed at this time. The matter will be reset

for hearing as necessary.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01707-KJM Document 37 Filed 06/02/05 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

2. The motion to compel arbitration shall remain on calendar. 

DATED: June 1, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

isaac.dro

Case 2:04-cv-01707-KJM Document 37 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JACKSON KITCHENS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1206 MCE PAN P

vs.

PAT HOUGE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested “an indefinite enlargement of time” upon the ground he has

“no legal library with which to research and formulate legal arguments in the instant action.”

When a party is required to act within a certain time under the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or an order, this court can extend the time to act based upon a showing of good

cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Plaintiff is not presently under any time constraint within which he

must act. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 24, 2006,

motion and request for enlargement of time is denied.

DATED: April 7, 2006.

\004

\kitc106.dny eot

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 47 Filed 04/07/06 Page 1 of 1
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- Training
- G-Invoicing (GINV) Release 4.2 New Functionality Highlights

# G-Invoicing (GINV) Release 4.2 New Functionality Highlights

Target Audience:

Intended for federal agencies using GINV or will soon be implementing GINV.

----

Location:

Webinar - WebEx Invite will be provided before each session to registered attendees.

----

Duration:

Cost:

Free

Hosted by:

Fiscal Accounting Office

Point of Contact:
                  If you have any questions, please e-mail our Help Desk at IGT@fiscal.treasury.gov.Event Details:
This webinar series will provide G-Invoicing leads an overview of new functionality released in r4.2. We’ll provide an overview of the GT&C Workflow functionality.

G-Invoicing (GINV) is a web-based application created to efficiently manage Intragovernmental (Intragov) buy/sell transactions between two federal agencies, from the agreement of the General Terms & Conditions (GT&Cs), to the Intragovernmental Payment and Collection (IPAC) system payment notification.

The United States Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service offers G-Invoicing at no charge to all federal agencies.
Registration
Registration is now closed for this webinar.

Last modified 08/08/21
The General PublicGovernment AgenciesBusiness & InstitutionsNewsReportsFormsReferenceTrainingEventsCareersAboutMailing ListsContactTwitterLinkedInFacebookYouTubeRSS FeedsBureau of the Fiscal Service 2024Accessibility Statement |                Data Quality |                Freedom of Information Act |                Privacy Policy |                Privacy Impact AssessmentsFiscal Service SitesDirect Express®Go Direct®TreasuryDirect.govTreasury HuntEFTPS.govPay.govAdministrative Resource Center (ARC)FiscalData.Treasury.govUSAspending.govTFX.treasury.govTreasury BureausThe Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade BureauBureau of Engraving and PrintingCommunity Development Financial Institutions FundFinancial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen)Internal Revenue ServiceOffice of the Comptroller of the CurrencyU.S. MintMore Government SitesUSA.govUSAJOBS.govOPM.govMyMoney.govData.govRegulations.govPaymentAccuracy.govNo Fear ActVote.gov
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/24/2023 1

No-Bid Contract for Election Software 

Fitrakis v. Husted (Gregory L. Frost, S.D. Ohio 2:12-cv-1015) 

Late on the Saturday before the 2012 general election, because of 

long lines during early voting, a party filed a complaint seeking relief from anticipated long lines on election day at the polls in three 

counties. The assigned judge was out of the district when the case 

was filed, so another judge, selected at random, handled the emergency motion. In response to the lawsuit, the counties created additional opportunities for in-person absentee voting. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Absentee ballots; early 

voting; case assignment. 

A voter filed a federal complaint1 and a motion for a temporary restraining 

order2

 in the Southern District of Ohio on the day before the 2012 general 

election, complaining that Ohio’s secretary of state had entered into contracts for voting software and equipment on September 18 without opening 

them up to public bidding. 

Judge Gregory L. Frost held a telephonic conference at 2:30 p.m. on the 

day that the case was filed3

 and set the matter for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on election day.4

 One expert testified at the hearing by telephone.5 After the hearing, 

Judge Frost denied the plaintiff immediate relief.6

 Ohio’s evidence was that 

the purpose of the software was not the tabulation of votes but the reporting 

of tabulations by the counties to the secretary’s office.7

 Judge Frost found the 

plaintiff’s concerns too speculative for immediate relief.8

The plaintiff dismissed the case voluntarily on November 20.9

1. Complaint, Fitrakis v. Husted, No. 2:12-cv-1015 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2012), D.E. 2. 

2. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Nov. 5, 2012), D.E. 3. 

3. Notice, id. (Nov. 5, 2012), D.E. 6. 

4. Notice, id. (Nov. 6, 2012), D.E. 8; see Minutes, id. (Nov. 6, 2012), D.E. 12. 

5. Opinion at 3, id. (Nov. 6, 2012), D.E. 13, 2012 WL 5411381. 

6. Id. at 1, 10; see Mary Beth Lane, Voter Finds Maiden Name in Poll Book, Columbus 

Dispatch, Nov. 8, 2012, at 8A. 

7. Opinion, supra note 5, at 4–6. 

8. Id. at 7. 

9. Notice, Fitrakis, No. 2:12-cv-1015 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2012), D.E. 14.
Exhibit 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

      The following list sets forth subsidiaries of Katy Industries,  Inc. as of
March 15,  2005,  as well as  operating  divisions  of such  subsidiaries,  with
successive  indentation  indicating  parent/subsidiary   relationships  of  such
subsidiaries.  The  percentage  (if  other  than  100%)  of  outstanding  equity
securities  owned by the  immediate  parent  and the  state of  jurisdiction  or
incorporation  of  each  such  subsidiary  is  stated  in  parentheses.  Omitted
subsidiaries do not, in the aggregate, constitute a "significant subsidiary".

American Gage & Machine Company (Illinois)
     WP Liquidating Corp. (Illinois)
Ashford Holding Corp. (Delaware)
Continental Commercial Products, LLC (Delaware)
   Contico (division)
   Disco (division)
   Gemtex (division)
   Glit/Microtron (division)
   Loren (division)
   Wilen (division)
   CEH Limited (U.K.)
         Contico Europe Limited (U.K.)
         Contico Manufacturing Limited (U.K.)
                  Spraychem Limited (U.K.)
DBPI, Inc. (Delaware)
GCW, Inc. (Delaware)
HPMI, Inc. (Delaware)
Hermann Lowenstein, Inc. (Delaware)
Katy International, Inc. (British Virgin Islands)
Katy Teweh Inc. (Delaware)
Katy-Seghers, Inc. (Delaware)
    K-S Energy Corp. (Delaware)
    Chatham Resource Recovery Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
    Savannah Energy Systems Company, Inc. (Delaware)
PTR Machine Corp. (Delaware)
Sahlman Holdings, Inc. (Florida) (43%)
Wabash Holding Corp. (Delaware)
W.J. Smith Wood Preserving Company (Texas)
Woods Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
    TTI Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
Woods Industries (Canada), Inc. (Ontario, Canada)
   Glit/Gemtex, Ltd. (Ontario, Canada)


                                       91
Before the Third Division,

April 17, 1958

No. 61837.

#### *Wilson &*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 203785-K, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 his request for clarification, plaintiff incorrectly claims that the court failed to make

any findings regarding plaintiff’s claims against any defendant except defendant Zhu. The court

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD GILMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0035 DFL KJM P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEDIA,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 9, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for an extension

of time to file an opposition to defendant’s August 26, 2005 motion to dismiss. Good cause

appearing, plaintiff’s request will be granted and his October 7, 2005 opposition will be deemed

timely.

Also, on October 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a “request for clarification” of this

court’s May 20, 2005 screening order. The court deems this a request for reconsideration of the

May 20, 2005 order. So construed, “the request for clarification” will be denied as untimely. 

See Local Rule 72-303(b).1 

Case 2:04-cv-00035-DFL -KJM Document 19 Filed 10/20/05 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

specifically found that plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state any claim against any

defendant except for plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Zhu. See May 20,

2005 Order at 1:20-2:2:1 & n.1. As with plaintiff’s original complaint, plaintiff failed to allege

in his amended complaint that any other defendant committed any overt act that led to plaintiff

suffering any medical problems. See November 1, 2004 Order at 3:3-10. Plaintiff was informed

of this deficiency in his original complaint, and given leave to correct the problem in an amended

complaint, but did not do so.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 9, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff’s October 7, 2005 opposition to defendant’s August 26, 2005 motion

to dismiss is deemed timely; and

3. Plaintiff’s October 7, 2005 “request f or clarification” is denied.

DATED: October 19, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

gilm0035.31

Case 2:04-cv-00035-DFL -KJM Document 19 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 2