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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,009,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,988,234
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 33,606,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,667,477
<PP&E>                                      39,807,920
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,500,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,079,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,276,454
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       742,398
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,907,806
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,079,369
<SALES>                                     38,174,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,174,032
<CGS>                                       32,499,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               36,846,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (164,876)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             427,681
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,064,848
<INCOME-TAX>                                   394,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            670,848
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   670,848
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09

        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms F-3 (No. 333-196223), and S-8 (Nos. 333-166315, 333-180368 and 333-183294) of VimpelCom Ltd. of our report dated March 24, 2015 relatingto the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of VimpelCom Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2014. We also consent to the reference tous under the heading “Selected Financial Data” in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. 

Amsterdam, 24 March 2015 

PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. 

/s/F.P. Izeboud RA CPA 

F.P. Izeboud RA CPA 

 
1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7441

EVELYN GUNN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON,

Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-00-2543-13AK)

Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Evelyn Gunn, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Evelyn Gunn seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See Gunn v. South Carolina, No. CA-00-2543-2-13AK

(D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                         290,454
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,711,527
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 39,238,564
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,905,352
<PP&E>                                      40,740,975
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,007,124
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,750,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,276,603
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       727,818
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,622,485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,750,945
<SALES>                                     84,940,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            84,940,875
<CGS>                                       71,606,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               80,706,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (145,348)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             853,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,526,556
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,340,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,186,556
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,186,556
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29



</TABLE>
Inhalation:

negligible (VP < 0.001 torr)

Dermal:

Exposure to Liquid at 100.00% concentration
High End:
> Potential Dose Rate: 2.2E+3 mg / day over 28 days / yr > Lifetime Average Daily Dose: 1.4E+0 mg / day over 28 days / yr > Average Daily Dose: 2.5E+0 mg / d ay over 28 days / yr > Acute Potential Dose: 3.2E+1 mg / day over 28 days / yr Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure: 3

Basis: Loading Liquid Product into Totes; EPA/OPPT 2-Hand Dermal Contact with Liquids Model.Inhalation:

negligible (VP < 0.001 torr)

Dermal:

Exposure to Liquid at 100.00% concentration
High End:
> Potential Dose Rate: 2.2E+3 mg / day over 250 days / y r > Lifetime Average Daily Dose: 1.3E+1 mg / day over 250 days / yr > Average Daily Dose: 2.2E+1 mg / day over 250 days / yr > Acute Potential Dose: 3.2E+1 mg / day over 250 days / yr Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure: 3

Basis: Unloading Liquid Raw Material from Totes; EPA/OPPT 2-Hand Dermal Contact with Liquids Model.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00341-CV

BEXAR COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellant

v.

Carmella GUERRERO,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-08758

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Unopposed First Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief is 

GRANTED. Time is extended to January 27, 2016.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of December, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Brirklayers & Allied Craftsmen Locall\o. 7 Pension l'lau 

Chcckl.ist Item 1129 

Docs the application include the plan sponsor's representation thut, if it receives the Treasury 

Department's linul authorization to suspend and then chooses to implement the suspension, it 

will also amend the plan: 

• to indicate that the suspension will cease upon tht: plan sponsor's failure to 

delennine that both all rcasonablt: measures continue to be taken to avoid 

insolvency and that the plan would not be projected to h.:come insolvent without a 

suspension; 

• to require that any future bene(i t improvements must satisfy§ 432(e)(9)(E); and 

• to specify that the plan sponsor will not modify these amendments, 

notwithstanding ;my other provision ui'the plan document? 

Sec section 6.06. 

Oocument 29.1 provides the required repres~ntations relating to plan arnendmenK 

29. 1 
6.06 Plan Sponsor Certification Relating to Plan Amendments 

nucurncnt 29.1 

Hoard of T ruste es' Repr·escntations on Plan Amendments 

See the following page. 

29.2 
B RICKLAYERS & A LLIED C RAFTSMEN 

L ocAL N o . 7 P ENSION P LAN 

June 28, 2016 

The I lonorablc Jacob J. Lew 

U.S. Secretary of the Treasury 

U.S. Oepartmcnt of the T reasury 

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, 1\'W 

Washington, DC. 20220 

33 FITCH BouLEVARD 

A USTINTOWN, OHIO 44515 

P hone: 330/270-0453 

Toll free: 800/435-2388 

Re: Board of' Trustees· Representations on Plan ."-mendmcnts Submitted on behalf of 

the lll'icklaycrs & Allied CraAsmen Local No.7 Pension l'lan 

Dear Secretary Lew: 

The Board of' Trustees of the Pension Plan represents that if it were to receive final 

amhori7.ation to implement the suspension of benefits as described in § 432(e)(9)(H)(vi) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and if it were to choose to implement the 

authorized suspension, then, in addition to the plan amendments implementing the suspension, 

the following plan mnendments would be timely adopted and would not be modified m any time 

thereal'ter before the suspension of bene it~ expires: 

I. t\ plan amendment providing thai, in accordance with § 432(e)(9)(C)(ii) o l' the 

Internal Revenue Code of I 9M6, as ;unended, the bcnctll s uspension will cease as 

of' the lir~t day of the first plan year lollowing the plan yem in which the Board of 

Tntstees fails 10 determine the following: 

a) All reasonable measures to avoid insolvency continue to be taken during 

the period or the benelit suspension; and 

b) The plan is projected to become in~olvent unless benefits continue: to be 

suspended. 

2. i\ plnn amendment providing that any future benefit improvements must satisfy 

the requirements of § 432(e)(9)(F.) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. as 

amended. 

3. A plan amendment specifying that the Doard of Trustees of the Pension Plan will 

not modify these amendments, notwithstanding any other provision of the plan 

document, he fi.lre the suspension of benefits expires. 

2\I.J 
Redacted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury

Respectfully submitrcd, 

c,/~¥6 ) , 1stee, on behalf of Date 

Bricklayers & Allied Crnl1smcn Local No.7 Pension Plan 

29.4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CDSI'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000022989
<NAME> COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,575,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               67,471,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            72,848,900
<PP&E>                                      29,596,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 934,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             107,966,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       39,507,900
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       595,800
<OTHER-SE>                                  63,228,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               107,966,300
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            70,073,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,455,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,632,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,846,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,785,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,785,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 2894

_____________________________
D ERRALL H OWARD , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Stephen S. Everett , Judge

. January 30, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B ILBREY , W INOKUR , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Derrall Howard, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JESSE D. BOND,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 74 EM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22 nd day of February , 202 2

, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the “Request for Writ of Mandamus” is DENIED.
EXHIBIT
31.1






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)






I,
Theodore H. Bunting, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of
Entergy Texas, Inc., as servicer (the “Servicer”), certify that:






1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be
filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Entergy
Texas Restoration Funding, LLC (the “Exchange Act periodic
reports”);






2. Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;






3.  Based
on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;






4.  I
am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Servicer, and based
on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer
compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,
and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the Servicer has
fulfilled its obligations under the Transition Property Servicing Agreement
dated as of November 6, 2009 between Entergy Texas Restoration Funding, LLC, as
the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer, in all material respects; and






5. All of
the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in
this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
10-K.








Date:  March
29, 2010




By:   /s/ Theodore H. Bunting,
Jr.


Name:  Theodore
H. Bunting, Jr.


Title:  Senior
Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 2096 LT Case No. 2010

- CF

- 001745

- A

_____________________________ C HARLES R. S OUTHERN , Appellant,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

3.800 appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Kevin A. Blazs, Judge

. Charles R. Southern, M iami, pro se.
A shley Moody, A t torney Ge neral, and Robert Charles Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. November 21, 2023

P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

. E DWARDS , C.J. , E ISNAUGLE , and B OATWRIGHT , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
Redacted by the U.S. Department of the TreasuryRedacted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

November 21, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
137485 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n

_____________ ____________________________ Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices IN RE JOSHUA CARLOS GARCIA, Minor,

________________ _________________________/

JOSE GARCIA and MARGARET GARCIA, Petitioners-Appellants,

v SC: 137485 COA: 284876 Kent CC: 08-022813-AM MICHIGAN CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE, Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 16, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1118 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 21, 2008
Clerk
Agenda Date: August 8, 2013

Prepared By: John Finnell, Manager, Permitting and Engineering

Topic: Adoption of New Rule 249, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products

Action Requested: 

1) Conduct a Public Hearing regarding the proposed new Rule 249, Surface Coating of Plastic 

Parts and Products.

2) Adopt Resolution #13-08 (Attachment #1), thereby approving new Rule 249, Surface 

Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, and the Findings in the Staff Report of Attachment 

#2.

Discussion: 

This rule is being proposed to address the control guidance for Miscellaneous Plastic Parts 

Coatings contained in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “Control 

Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings” (CTG), 

September 2008.

This proposed rule fulfills the EPA’s requirement to adopt a measure that incorporates the 

CTG guidance.

Placer County currently has only one minor source, Freedom Refinishing, under permit which 

would be required to meet the requirements of this rule. The owner indicates that he 

occasionally coats plastic parts and the total coated amounts to approximately 2% of his 

business. The company is aware of the proposed rule and has no concerns.

Fiscal Impact:

None. The rule limits the VOC content of coatings used to coat miscellaneous plastic parts 

and products. These coating are readily available at no additional cost. 

Public Outreach:

In addition to contacting the one affected stationary source, Rule 249 was forwarded to EPA 

for comment in May, 2013, and EPA staff responded with a number of comments, primarily 

clarifications on definitions. The rule was revised and sent to EPA for a final review. EPA 

reviewed the final draft and indicated they have no further comments.

Board Agenda Item

Public Hearing/Action
Adoption of Rule 249, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products

August 8, 2013

Page 2

The public hearing on Rule 249 before the Board of Directors was noticed by newspaper 

publication in the Auburn Journal on July 7, 2013. No comments have been received.

The final draft was forwarded to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for review and 

comments. A response has not been received.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends adoption of Resolution #13-08 (Attachment #1) approving new Rule 249, 

Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, and approval of the Findings in the Staff Report 

in Attachment #2.

Attachments: #1: Resolution #13-08, Adoption of new Rule 249, Surface Coating of 

Plastic Parts and Products, Exhibit I, Rule 249, Surface Coating of 

Plastic Parts and Products

#2: Staff Report
ATTACHMENT #1

Subject:

Resolution #13-08, Adoption of 

New Rule 249, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
EXHIBIT I

Rule 249, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
ATTACHMENT #2

Subject:

Staff Report
#### John R. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. Virginia C. ROBINSON, Appellee.

No. 70-438.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 20, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0000021828
<NAME>   COLONIAL COMMERCIAL CORP.
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         855,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,398,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                   397,690
<INVENTORY>                                  1,102,187
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,343,723
<PP&E>                                         288,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                 159,113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,059,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,041,410
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     83,733
<COMMON>                                        71,131
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,968,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,059,233
<SALES>                                     12,016,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,016,960
<CGS>                                        9,106,225
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,106,225
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               135,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             152,561
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                235,244
<INCOME-TAX>                                    60,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            175,244
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   175,244
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        


</TABLE>