alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
polid stid cyid year sector adjacee

NH3 17 119 2007area 112.6467333 Sector Ammonia VOC NH3 17 133 2007area 8.08962748 Point 107.29 4,205.83 NH3 17 157 2007area 18.63203785 Area 4,327.80 8,446.05 NH3 17 163 2007area 105.5127969 Non-road 6.56 3,031.79 NH3 17 119 2007egu_point 0.573183459 On-road 301.72 6,976.92 NH3 17 133 2007egu_point 0.071185322 Total 4,743.37 22,660.59 NH3 17 157 2007egu_point 1.944045006 NH3 17 163 2007egu_point 0.027757618 NH3 17 119 2007marairrail 0.940973828 NH3 17 133 2007marairrail 0.818430165 NH3 17 157 2007marairrail 0.73938646 NH3 17 163 2007marairrail 0.58251065 NH3 17 119 2007 MOVES 135.3380883 NH3 17 133 2007 MOVES 12.69799099 NH3 17 157 2007 MOVES 13.29538105 NH3 17 163 2007 MOVES 140.3887724 NH3 17 119 2007nh3 1208.368037 NH3 17 133 2007nh3 701.4725074 NH3 17 157 2007nh3 1092.018084 NH3 17 163 2007nh3 1081.056792 NH3 17 119 2007nonegu_pt 81.70125566 NH3 17 133 2007nonegu_pt 0.04904772 NH3 17 157 2007nonegu_pt 0.811903939 NH3 17 163 2007nonegu_pt 22.10688663 NH3 17 119 2007nonroad 1.613182444 NH3 17 133 2007nonroad 0.304085094 NH3 17 157 2007nonroad 0.314038197 NH3 17 163 2007nonroad 1.251048828 4,743.37 ROG 17 119 2007area 3712.203914 ROG 17 133 2007area 642.523783 ROG 17 157 2007area 823.3925679 ROG 17 163 2007area 3267.929503 ROG 17 119 2007egu_point 56.28860236 ROG 17 133 2007egu_point 0.343887993 ROG 17 157 2007egu_point 318.3182418 ROG 17 163 2007egu_point 0.112047641 ROG 17 119 2007marairrail 57.74872393 ROG 17 133 2007marairrail 49.65172908 ROG 17 157 2007marairrail 52.00418446 ROG 17 163 2007marairrail 57.2633079 ROG 17 119 2007nonegu_pt 3116.771944 ROG 17 133 2007nonegu_pt 17.19817331 ROG 17 157 2007nonegu_pt 10.67456109 ROG 17 163 2007nonegu_pt 686.1239259 ROG 17 119 2007nonroad 1383.053282 ROG 17 133 2007nonroad 182.3814416 ROG 17 157 2007nonroad 271.5583359 ROG 17 163 2007nonroad 978.1290901 TOG 17 119 2007 MOVES 3131.079308 TOG 17 133 2007 MOVES 282.9908964 TOG 17 157 2007 MOVES 342.0947825 TOG 17 163 2007 MOVES 3220.758075 22,660.59

Emissions in tons per year
EXHIBIT 11
                    CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                        AND SUBSIDIARIES

                Computation of Earnings Per Share



                                  3 months ended      6 months ended 
                                      June 30            June 30  
                              --------------------  --------------------
                                1998       1997       1998       1997    
                              --------- ----------  --------- ----------

Computation of share
 totals used in 
 computing earnings
 per share:

Weighted average number
 of shares outstanding       2,270,634   2,232,942   2,255,253   2,231,823
(Adjusted for stock
 dividend August 1, 1997)

Basic average shares                             
 a-Outstanding               2,270,634   2,232,942   2,255,253   2,231,823 
 

Incremental shares
 arising, from out-
 standing stock 
 options                        11,986       8,808      10,483       8,808
                             ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
 b-Totals                    2,282,620   2,241,750   2,265,736   2,240,631 
                             =========   =========   =========   ========= 
                                              
 c-Net Income for
   Common Stock before
   extraordinary item       $3,190,744  $3,053,028  $6,320,994  $5,679,361
 
 d Extraordinary Item           ---     $2,239,045      ---        ---

 e Net Income for 
   Common Stock after        ---------   ----------  ---------  ---------
   extraordinary item       $3,190,744  $5,292,073  $6,320,994  $7,918,406 
  

Net Income Per Share
 Basic - c/a                $     1.40  $     1.37  $     2.80  $     2.54 
    

Extraordinary item per Basic        
Average Shares   d/a        $     ---   $     1.00  $      ---  $     1.00 
                             ---------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Net Income Per Basic 
 Average Share After 
 Extraordinary item         $     1.40  $     2.37  $     2.80  $     3.54
                             =========  ==========  ==========  ==========

Net Income Per Share
 before Extraordinary
 item assuming Full
 dilution c/b               $     1.40  $     1.36  $     2.79  $     2.53
                             =========  ==========  ==========  =========

Net Income Per Share 
  after extraordinary
  item assuming full
  dilution e/b              $     1.40  $     1.36  $     2.79  $     3.53
                             =========  ==========  =========   =========
Mission: Improving transportation to and within federal and tribal lands by providing technical services to the highway transportation community. This report only includes fiscal year (FY) 2013, FY 2014 and FY 2015, for updated information please visit: http://www.cflhd.gov/programs/flap/hi/index.cfmIf you have any questions please contact: Chris Longley, Access Program Manager 720-963-3733, Christopher.Longley@dot.govMorgan Malley, Lead Planner 720-963-3605, Morgan.Malley@dot.govProgramming Decision Committee (PDC) members: Ryan Tyler, FHWA Representative Ryan.Tyler@dot.govRobert Miyasaki, State Representative Robert.Miyasaki@hawaii.govMarian Yasuda, Local Representative marian.yasuda@honolulu.gov

Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) 

Improving access to and within federal and tribal lands

Hawaii 

MAP-21 Funding Authorized: FY 2013: $263,333 FY 2014: $265,311 FY 2015: $259,992 Federal land acreage for the five core FLMAs: 9.57% Federal public road miles: 113.2 Number of Federal public bridges: 2 Recreational visitation: 8,148,746 visitors per year 

Highlighted Project: Hoolapa Stream BridgeTo Be Constructed: FY 2017 Success Story: This bridge provides primary vehicular access to the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge by way of Kamehameha Highway. The project will allow continued access for the staff necessary to manage important habitats and for visitors to enjoy. The project will replace the existing deficient bridge built in 1931 with a new structure that meets current design standards. The structure will be widened, lengthen, include bridge railings that will redirect errant vehicles, meet current seismic design criteria, eliminate possibility of pier scour, include wider shoulders for pedestrian and bicycles, and be designed to accommodate present day vehicular loads. This project represents successful collaboration with the Hawaii Department of Transportation as this project has been included on the State Transportation Improvement Program and through the FLAP project delivery was accelerated.

Hoolapa Bridge, Pre-
FLAP—Hawaii 

FLAP Project Selection Process

Project Name Improvement Type FLMA 

Accessed 

Federal Land's Unit Delivery 

Year 

D

Hoolapa Stream Bridge 4R Bridge— preliminary 

engineering 

FWS FWS– James Campbell Fish and 

Wildlife Refuge 

2017 CFL

FHW

Pearl Harbor Multimodal Connections Study 

Technical Feasibility Study NPS NPS– Valor in the Pacific National 

Monument 

2017 CFL

FHW

Kilauea Bike/ pedestrian access study 

4R Bridge— preliminary engineering 

FWS FWS– Kilauea Point 2017 CFL

FHW

FLAP Program of Projects*

Call for Projects 

Number of 

Applications Received 

Total Access Program 

Funds Requested 

June 16, 2013 - 

July 19, 2013 1 $263,000 

May 19, 2014 - 

June 18, 2014 3 $525,311 

263K 265K 

263K

165

2013 2014 

Obligations A

*This information is an overview of the FLAP projects information. It is subject to change at any time. For additional details or clarifications

Lands Highway Division offices or visit the State FLAP webpage.
<PAGE>



                COMPREHENSIVE CARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Comprehensive Care
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 10, 2003 (the
"Report"), Mary Jane Johnson, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of her knowledge, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

                        /s/   Mary Jane Johnson
                        ---------------------------------------
                        Mary Jane Johnson
                        Chief Executive Officer
                        October 10, 2003


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to SS. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Comprehensive Care Corporation and
will be retained by Comprehensive Care Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Cynthia Thomas GANT v. FLINT-GOODRIDGE HOSPITAL OF DILLARD UNIVERSITY and Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co.

No. 62688.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Cynthia Thomas Gant, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 359 So.2d 279.

Not considered. Not timely filed.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSRS

 

| Investment Company Act file number | 811-4670 |
|------------------------------------|----------|

 

DWS Global/International Fund, Inc.

 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

 

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (212) 454-7190

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

 

| Date of fiscal year end: | 10/31 |
|--------------------------|-------|

 

| Date of reporting period: | 04/30/09 |
|---------------------------|----------|

 

 

**ITEM 1.**           **REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS**

 

----
AAM-11-221-E 

April 8, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10239 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0247 

Mr. James T. Harvilchuck 

Drug Program Manager 

Better Living Aviation, Inc. 

130 S. Clow International Pkwy 

Bolingbrook, Illinois 60490 

Dear Mr. Harvilchuck: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated March 6, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Better Living Aviation, Inc (BLA) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow BLA to cover its safetysensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the 

regulation. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to BLA. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 
2 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Better Living Aviation, Inc. an exemption from 

14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow BLA to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation, subject to 

the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Better Living Aviation, Inc. are subject to the drug and alcohol 

regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Better Living Aviation, Inc. part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. 

Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
#### SAINER CONSTRUCTORS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF SARASOTA COUNTY, Florida, a Florida Corporation, for the use and benefit of Montgomery Enterprises, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Don E. Nooe, d/b/a N & T Enterprises, Appellees.

No. 77-548.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 9, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 30, 1977.

Robert P. Rosin and Daryl J. Brown of Rosin, Abel, Band, Rosin & Brown, Sarasota, for appellant.

Stephen D. Rees and Malcolm C. Riddell of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm & Furen, Sarasota, for appellee, The School Bd. of Sarasota County.

F. Linton Sloan, Jr., of Sloan & Meyer, Bartow, for Don E. Nooe.

HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant takes this interlocutory appeal from an order denying its motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute; Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e).

The motion to dismiss was filed June 28, 1976 and alleged that the last affirmative action was on the 20th day of February, 1975, when it had served a motion to set the case for trial. The trial court assumed the motion to set the case for trial had been filed and served on that date and under the holding of *City of Miami v. Dade County,*321 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), denied appellant’s motion.

Appellant takes the position that its allegation that the motion to set the case for trial had been served on February 20, 1975 was an inadvertent mistake and that in truth and fact the motion had never been filed or served. In its brief the appellant argues that the last record activity was August 30, 1974. The appellee school board asserted in its brief that the motion to set the case for trial had been served on February 20,1975 and that under the case of *City of Miami, supra,*it was the duty of the trial court to enter an order setting the cause for trial. In view of this dispute we temporarily relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court to determine whether or not the motion to set the case for trial had actually been filed and served. We have received the trial court’s determination which found that the motion was not filed and served but that he had relied upon the appellant’s statement in its motion to dismiss that it had been. Therefore, under *City of Miami, supra,*he had denied the motion to dismiss.

It is now apparent from the record before us that the last activity in this cause was on August 30, 1974 and the appellant’s motion to dismiss filed on June 28, 1976 should have been granted. Therefore, we reverse the cause and remand to the trial court for the entry of a final judgment of dismissal for failure to prosecute.

GRIMES and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR ORANGE AND
ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000074778
<NAME> ORANGE AND ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      708,278
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      3,258
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         185,033
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       191,115
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,087,684
<COMMON>                                             5
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      194,499
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            142,156
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 336,660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           335,628
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<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>                 415,396
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,087,684
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      522,471
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            14,035
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     460,710
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     474,745
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         47,726
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,709
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  51,435
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        19,070
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,365
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   32,365
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       17,286
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          46,997
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
DRAFT 12 - 5 - 14

1



### Followup Call: 111(d) Goal Translation **US EPA and Georgia EPD**  **December 15, 2014, 10:00 am –**  **11:00 am Introductions**  Georgia EPD Attendees: Keith Bentley , GEPD Director Karen Hays James Boyland Albert Pearce **Proposed Agenda**  Georgia EPD presentation to EPA ( 25 minutes)  Background

– application of goal - setting equation to Georgia  Proposed method to project generation for setting mass -based goal  Comparison s of 2030 generation determined by different methods  Issues with projections  Summary Questions for EPA on Goal Translation TSD (20 minutes)  Under the “existing affected sources ” approach, what is the estimated nationwide reduction in CO 2 emissions from 2005?  Same question for the “existing affected and new fossil fuel - fired sources” approach ?  On the November 20 call, someone on the EPA team indicated that the rate - based goal has no expectation of a generation level in the goal ye ar. If so, please explain how the rate -based goal can be reasonable without tying back into a rigorous projection of demand/generation in 2030 . Wrap - up
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERMAN JAIMES SOLANO, 

Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-73040

Agency No. A077-358-523

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 11, 2021** 

Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge.

 

Petitioner German Jaimes Solano (Solano), a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

FILED

MAY 13 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
affirming the Immigration Judge (IJ)’s denial of his untimely motion to reopen. 

Our jurisdiction arises under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The BIA declined to reopen

pursuant to its sua sponte authority. We generally lack jurisdiction to review the

BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). 

See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, we review only for

“legal or constitutional error.” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). 

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here. We

dismiss the petition.

1. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision. Solano asserts that

the BIA rested its decision on a legal error because it wrongly determined that the

Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013)––and by

extension, our decision in United States v. Aguilera-Rios, 769 F.3d 626 (9th Cir.

2014)––does not represent a fundamental change in the law and therefore does not

constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting sua sponte reopening. But we

recently made clear that the BIA “is not required . . . to reopen proceedings sua

sponte in exceptional situations, even those involving a fundamental change in the

law.” Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1234–35 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). Thus,

2
the BIA was under no obligation to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen even

if Moncrieffe constitutes a fundamental change.

1

2. Because Solano failed to raise the issue before the BIA, we also lack

jurisdiction to address Solano’s claim that, following Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.

Ct. 2105 (2018), he is eligible for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).

PETITION DISMISSED.

1

 Solano also argues that the BIA erred in finding that he had not filed a

motion to reopen directly with the BIA, rendering 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(g)(3)’s

provisions on unopposed motions inapplicable. But even if the BIA erred in this

regard, the BIA had no obligation to grant Solano’s motion simply because it was

unopposed. See Limsco v. INS, 951 F.2d 210, 213 (9th Cir. 1991). 

3
1

Brunner, Christine

From: Sutton, Tia

Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:53 PM

To: Brunner, Christine

Subject: FW: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86) - for the docket

Attachments: EO_12866_ Tier 3_Final_Rule_Summary_Comments_2_13_2014.docx; EO12866

_Comments on EPA_Tier 3 draft final rule - 2_13_2014.doc

From: Sargeant, Kathryn 

Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:45 PM 

To: Sutton, Tia 

Subject: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86) 

For the docket 

From: Whiteman, Chad [mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:45 AM 

To: Sargeant, Kathryn 

Subject: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86) 

Kathryn, 

 Attached are some of the EO 12866 comments on the Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86). 

Regards, 

Chad