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

<ARTICLE>               UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN ITEM 1 OF CONSOLIDATED NATURAL
GAS COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,038,794
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  1,191,312
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         983,146
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       416,054
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 416,031
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,045,337
<COMMON>                                       263,206
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      527,204
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,571,342
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               2,393,708
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,304,613
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 493,200
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  154,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,731,772
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,045,337
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      999,165
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            69,497
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     764,315
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     833,812
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        165,353
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               2,477
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 167,830
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        29,797
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,895
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   77,895
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        46,428
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       99,108
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         401,963
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .82
        

</TABLE>
Best Communication Practices for P reparation of Exceptional Event Demonstrations

OAQPS developed t his document of Best Practices based on input received from EPA regional offices and selected state/local air agencies who submitted Exceptional Event Demonstrations under the 2007 version of the Exceptional Events Rule (EE Rule). After promulgation of revisions to the 2007 EE Rule, this document will be updated to conform to the revised Exceptional Events Rule.

EPA regi onal offices and state air agencies may find that using the following communication practices between all staff involved in such work will provide for efficient preparation and review of Exceptional Events demonstrations (demonstrations). This document is not intended to reflect the best practices for technical analyses specifically, as we include those in the guidance documents for each event type.

On a regular and mutually agreed upon frequency , EPA regional offices and their air agencies should communicate at the following stages of demonstration development and submission

.
Before the air agency begins work to develop its next exceptional event demonstration (s):

 Discuss and document which flagged monitoring sites and days will become the subjec t of demonstrations based on summary information for each event

.
 Discuss and document the current or potential regulatory significance of these days , including when their regulatory significance or non

- significance will become clear

– if not already known

.
 Discuss the level of effort and types of analyses to be included in each demonstration

.
 Discuss the timing of the submission s and the expected response time s from the EPA regional office in light of the office’s prioritization of work.

 Verify a shared understanding of rule and guidance provisions applicable to the event type(s) under consideration.

 Understand key data and analys e s that were successful in obtaining EPA approval of previous demonstrations for those event type(s).

During development of de monstrations :

 Share early drafts of data, analysis
, and narrative in time to provide the EPA regional office with time for review and feedback.

After submission:

 Confirm how the EPA regional office will keep the state air agency informed of the progress of EPA’s review.

 Discuss and confirm w hich demonstrations still have regulatory significance, and which ones have “aged out”.

 Discuss and understand the policy and technical reasons for the EPA regional office not being able to act on a s ubmission

.

After EPA action on Exceptional Event demonstrations:

 Discuss elements of the process that should be continued and those that need to be improved.

 Understand which information was useful for EPA’s action and which information was extraneous

.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 24, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-0347

Lower Tribunal No. 76-10139D

________________

Lawrence Evans,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), from Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Stacy D. Glick, Judge.

Lawrence Evans, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and MILLER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Michel, 257 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2018).
#### Anthony M. MISHO, Appellant, v. Alice M. MISHO, Appellee.

No. 73-245.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 29, 1974.

John D. Haines, of Winderweedle, Haines, Ward & Woodman, Winter Park, for appellant.

Charles R. Trulock, Jr., of Law Offices of Howard Reiss, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon a review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the briefs and oral argument of the parties, we conclude that the third sentence of paragraph numbered 3 of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage should be modified to *63provide for child support payment in the amount of $300.00 per month per child until each child reaches the age of eighteen years, or until further order of the trial court, and that the last twelve lines of paragraph numbered 3, beginning with the words “The court does not anticipate .” and continuing to the end of said numbered paragraph 3 is stricken. In all other respects, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, as modified, is affirmed.

Affirmed, as modified.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur.
No. 72-1042.

#### Stone *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                                                                               EXHIBIT 12

COLUMBUS SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY
Computation of Consolidated Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in thousands except ratio data)

<CAPTION>

                                                                                                  Twelve
                                                                                                  Months
                                                             Year Ended December 31,              Ended
                                                  1997      1998      1999      2000     2001     6/30/02
<S>                                            <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed Charges:
  Interest on First Mortgage Bonds              $55,156   $47,323   $43,207   $40,602   $34,575   $23,731
  Interest on Other Long-term Debt               15,525    23,594    25,878    25,878    27,365    30,367
  Interest on Short-term Debt                     5,104     3,493     2,460     2,412     4,914     3,718
  Miscellaneous Interest Charges                  4,729     4,459     4,659    14,205     3,755     2,853
  Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals     4,100     5,300     4,600     5,300     4,800     4,800
     Total Fixed Charges                        $84,614   $84,169   $80,804   $88,397   $75,409   $65,469

Earnings:
  Income Before Extraordinary Item             $119,379  $133,044  $150,270  $120,202  $191,900  $192,390
  Plus Federal Income Taxes                      69,760    71,202    82,686   116,590    94,148    98,063
  Plus State and Local Income Taxes                   6         3        89       136     8,811     6,389
  Plus Fixed Charges (as above)                  84,614    84,169    80,804    88,397    75,409    65,469
     Total Earnings                            $273,759  $288,418  $313,849  $325,325  $370,268  $362,311

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                 3.23      3.42      3.88      3.68      4.91      5.53
</TABLE>
### RHOD E ISLAN D DEPARTMEN T O F ENVIRONMENTA L MANAGEMEN T 23 5 Promenad

e Street , Providence

, R I 02908-576 7 TD

D 401-222-446

2 2 1 Februar

y 201 4 Mr . Davi dB . Conroy , Chie f o f Program s Branch USEPA , Regio

n 1 Environmenta

l Protection Agenc y 5 Pos t Offic e Squar

e - Suit e 10 0 Boston , M A 02109-391 2 Dea r Mr . Conroy : Th e Offic e o f

Ai r Resource s (OAR ) i s hereb y submittin g the enclose

d Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Regulatio n 49 , entitle d "Transportatio n Conformity " a s arevisio n to th

e Rhod e Islan d Stat

e Implementatio n Pla

n (SIP) . Th e regulatio n becam

e effectiv e o n 2 0 Octobe

r 201 1 an d addresse

s th e requiremen

t to ensur e tha t federa l fundin g an

d approva l ar e given t o transportatio n plans , programs an d project s tha

t ar e consisten

t wit h th e ai r qualit y goal s established by Rhod e Island' s Stat

e Implementatio n Plan . A notic e o f

inten t t o receiv e publi c commen

t concerning thi s regulatio n wa s issue d o n 1 5 Jul y 201 1 t o affor d al l interested partie s th e opportunit

y to submi

t comment

s i n writin g unti l 2

2 August 2011 . Th

e notic e o f

intent als o gav e th e opportunit

y fo r apubli c hearing . A publi c hearing wa

s not requested . Response

s t o comment

s received ar

e include d i n th

e hearing officer' s Decision documen

t include d a

s par t o f thi s submittal . Th e followin g suppor

t document

s ar e included : 1 . A copy o f

th e Notic e o f

Publi c Commen

t Perio d signe

d 1 5 July 2011 ; 2 . A n Affidavi t

o f Publication/Postin g fromth e Offic e o f

Secretar y o f Stat e publishe d 1 9 Jul y 201 1 an

d acopy o f

the mailin g list ; 3 . A copy o f

th e hearing officer' s Decision ; an d 4 . A copy o f

th e fina l Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Regulation No . 49 . I f you should hav

e an y questions , fee l free t

o contact Fran k Stevenso n a t 401-222-2808 , ex

t 7021 . Sincerely , ^ouglasMcVay , Offic e o f Ai r R RIDE M Enclosur e Cc : Anne Arnold , EP

A Region 1 30 % post-consume r fibe r
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1716. JAMEZ BRYANT v. THE STATE.

In 2018, Jamez Bryant entered a guilty plea to two counts of enticing a child

for indecent purposes, and an order of nolle prosequi was entered on twelve

remaining counts. Following entry of this plea, Bryant has filed successive motions

to withdraw his plea for an out-of-time appeal. The trial court has denied the motions,

and Bryant has filed multiple appeals, which we have dismissed. See Case Nos.

A20A0052, dismissed Aug. 5, 2019; A20A0147, dismissed April 21, 2020;

A21A1377, dismissed June 9, 2021. On January 19, 2021, the trial court entered its

fourth order denying Bryant’s motion for out-of-time appeal, and Bryant filed this

appeal.

As we have repeatedly explained to Bryant, he is not entitled to litigate the

same issue ad infinitum.

1 See Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d 464)

(2000); see also Williams v. State, 335 Ga. App. 468, 469 (1) (781 SE2d 791) (2016)

(the dismissal of a prior appeal acts as res judicata); Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326,

327 (713 SE2d 438) (2011) (dismissal of prior appeal precludessubsequent appellate

review under the law of the case rule). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED. Bryant’s motion to remand is DISMISSED as MOOT.

1

In the June 9 order, we deemed Bryant’s appeal frivolous, and we cautioned

him that future such filings will result in sanctions. We note, however, that Bryant

filed this notice of appeal on February 8, 2021, before we issued the June 9 order.

Under these circumstances, we decline to sanction Bryant at this juncture. But this

appeal also is deemed frivolous, and any future frivolous filings in this Court will

result in the imposition of sanctions.

October 21, 2021
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/21/2021
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2014 - 0188 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM157AD

GOODRICH 46400 - 32 - 111 --- 4/8/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Cindisue Mining
Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended January 31, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Donovan L.
Cooper, 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, 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: July 20, 2011                     By: /s/ Donovan L. Cooper
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Donovan L. Cooper
                                            Chief Executive Officer

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Treasury approves Alaska’s plan to invest $24 million of CPF funding in a 

multi-purpose community facility to improve resources for communities 

that enable work, education, and health monitoring.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Alaska

 

▪ Program Summary: $24 million for Multi-Purpose Community Facilities (21% of 

CPF allocation)

▪ Program Description: The construction of the 

Nenana Health and Wellness Complex, which 

includes an outpatient community behavioral 

health center, a training center for home health 

aides, meeting spaces, an urgent care center, 

health clinics, and a daycare center. In addition 

to offering health monitoring services, the 

health clinics would train new healthcare personnel and offer internships. The 

outpatient community behavior health center will provide parenting classes and 

classes for youth on the risks of substance abuse.

▪ Key State Contact: The Nenana Native Association

Alaska Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information

Alaska estimates that the 

Nenana Health and Wellness 

Complex will benefit residents 

in the interior of Alaska, 

approximately 3,000 

individuals, as well as 

seasonal workers and tourists.
Checklist Item #39 Application for Approval of a Suspension of 

Benefits Under MPRA

Iron Workers Local 17 Pension Fund EIN: 51-0161467

Plan No.: 001

Does the application 

include the most recently 

updated rehabilitation 

plan. 

See section 7.09

The application for the Iron Workers Local 17 

Pension Fund includes a complete copy of the 

Rehabilitation Plan for the Iron Workers Local 17 

Pension Fund Effective May 1, 2011. This is the 

most recent Rehabilitation Plan adopted by the 

Board of Trustees for the Pension Fund which 

adopted measures to forestall insolvency. The 

Alternate Schedule was adopted by the Bargaining 

Parties effective May 1, 2013. All Participants in 

the Iron Workers Local 17 Pension Fund are 

covered under the terms of the Alternate Schedule. 

The most recent Rehabilitation Plan is attached as 

IW17PF_742- 751. 

IW17PF_741
IW17PF_742
IW17PF_743
IW17PF_744
IW17PF_745
IW17PF_746
IW17PF_747
IW17PF_748
IW17PF_749
IW17PF_750
IW17PF_751

Redacted by the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury Redacted by the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury

Redacted by the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury Redacted by the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury

Redacted by the U.S. Department of 

the Treasury

Redacted by the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-31396 Summary Calendar

JOHN E. PORTER Plaintiff - Appellant

v. ROBERT C KESSNER; ELTON JOHN BAIN; KESSNER, DUCA, UMEMAYASHI, BAIN & MATSUNAGA; AIU NORTH AMERICAN; JAMES CURREN; JOHNSON CONTROLS WORLD SERVICES; DYNCORP; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM, Director

Defendants - Appellees

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-1537

- - - - - - - - - - July 27, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John E. Porter appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging that the settlement agreement reached under the provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), as extended by the Defense Base Act, was procured under duress, was inadequate as a matter of law, and was not supported by substantial evidence. See 33 U.S.C. §901 et seq. ; 42 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq. He also challenged the LHWCA’s attorneyNo. 00-31396 -2- fee provisions at 33 U.S.C. § 928 and alleged that the defendants defamed him by filing false documents and information with the FBI. The district court dismissed Porter’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluded that the LHWCA did not prohibit claimants from procuring counsel, and dismissed without prejudice Porter’s state law claim for defamation. On appeal, Porter argues that his challenge to the settlement agreement has not been examined on its merits and that the LHWCA’s attorney fee provisions severely limit his ability to contract with counsel. Porter also challenges the district court’s award of costs to the defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Porter does not address in his brief the district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Thus, the issue is waived. See Carmon v. Lubrizol Corp. , 17 F.3d 791, 794 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court properly dismissed Porter’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. He settled his LHWCA claim and sought review of the ALJ’s 33 U.S.C. § 908(i) settlement order with the Benefits Review Board and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The district court had no jurisdiction under the LHWCA to review his settlement agreement further. See 33 U.S.C. § 921; Fontenot v. AWI, Inc. , 923 F.2d 1127, 1133 (5th Cir. 1991)(LHWCA provides the exclusive remedy for workers within its scope). Likewise, his alleged inability to obtain the services of an attorney under the LHWCA’s provisions is not cognizable. Because the defendants prevailed, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it grantedNo. 00-31396 -3- costs to the defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). See Stearns Airport Equip. Co. v. FMC Corp. , 170 F.3d 518, 536 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
Compliance portal login and account validation 

Logging in 

To enter the compliance portal, register with Login.gov. Use the following link. 

https://portal.treasury.gov/compliance

Upon completing your registration, you will be directed to the portal.

Account validation 

When logging into the compliance portal, you will be presented with the 

following:

To proceed to the portal, complete the fields (first name, last name, account 

identifier), and click the “Verify” button. The account identifier will have been 

provided to your point of contact via email.
If the account is located, you will be asked to further verify the account 

information by providing the account zip code.

After completing the verification steps, you will be redirected to the compliance 

portal (pictured below) with access to associated compliance reports.
#### Clarence BETHEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1956.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

May 1, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.