alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15



November 4, 2005



Northeast Utilities

107 Selden Street

Berlin, CT 06037



We have made a review, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of Northeast Utilities and subsidiaries (the "Company") for the periods ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, as indicated in our report dated November 7, 2005 (which report includes explanatory paragraphs related to significant charges recorded due to Companys decision to exit certain business lines, and the presentation of certain components as discontinued operations); because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.



We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-34622, 33-40156, and 333-128811 on Forms S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-63023, 333-52413, 333-63144 and 333-106008 on Forms S-8 of Northeast Utilities.



We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



|/s/ | Deloitte & Touche LLP
|--- | ---------------------
|    | Deloitte & Touche LLP





Hartford, Connecticut
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30998]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP85-221-0977]


Frontier Gas Storage Company; Notice of Sale Pursuant to 
Settlement Agreement

November 20, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 14, 1997, Frontier Gas Storage Company 
(Frontier), c/o Reid & Priest, Market Square, 701 Pennsylvania Ave., 
N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004, in compliance with provisions 
of the Commission's February 13, 1985, Order in Docket No. CP82-487-
000, et al., submitted an executed Service Agreement under rate 
Schedule LVS-1 providing for the possible sale of up to a daily 
quantity of 50,000 MMBtu, not to exceed 2,000,000 MMBtu of Frontier's 
gas storage inventory on an ``as metered'' basis to Rainbow Gas 
Company, for term ending December 31, 1998.
    Under Subpart (b) of Ordering Paragraph (F) of the Commission's 
February 13, 1985, Order, Frontier is ``authorized to commerce the sale 
of its inventory under such an executed service agreement fourteen days 
after filing the agreement with the Commission, and may continue making 
such sale unless the Commission issues an order either requiring 
Frontier to stop selling and setting the matter for hearing or 
permitting the sale to continue and establishing other procedures for 
resolving the matter.''
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make a protest with reference 
to said filing should, within 10 days of the publication of such notice 
in the Federal Register, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (888 First Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426) a motion to 
intervene or protest in accordance with the requirements of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures, 18 CFR 385.214 or 18 CFR 
385.211. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining 
the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make 
protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30998 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATESCODE

 

I, Martin Beaulieu, the Principal FinancialOfficer of Altegris Advisors, L.L.C., the General Partner of Altegris QIM Futures Fund, L.P. (the “Partnership”), certifythat (i) the Annual Report of the Partnership on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2019 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

Date: March 31, 2020

 

 

/s/ Martin Beaulieu                

Martin Beaulieu

Principal Financial Officer

Altegris Advisors, L.L.C.

General Partner of Altegris QIM FuturesFund, L.P.
#### The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert E. BROWN, Respondent.

No. 73-992.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 6, 1973.

Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Joseph Durant, Asst. State’s Atty., for petitioner.

Phillip Hubbart, Public Defender and Mark King Leban, Asst. Public Defender, for respondent.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for certiorari, the State seeks review of an order requiring the disclosure of the name of a confidential informant, contending that the trial judge departed from the essential requirements of the law1 in requiring the disclosure of same when the only evidence before the trial judge [upon the motion to compel disclosure] demonstrated that the confidential informant did not introduce the defendant to the law enforcement officer and did not witness the alleged criminal transaction.

Therefore, it appears that the trial judge committed a departure from the essential requirements of the law and erred in this ruling, under the authority of this court’s opinion in Doe v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 262 So.2d 11. See also: City of Miami v. Jones, Fla.App. 1964, 165 So.2d 775.

The order compelling disclosure be and the same is hereby quashed.

1

. State v. Andres, 148 Fla. 742, 5 So.2d 7; State v. Coyle, Fla.App.1906, 181 So.2d 671; State v. Crews, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 754; State v. Smith, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 402, quashed in part Fla.1972, 260 So.2d 489.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31345]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


SES Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Agency for International Development.

ACTION: Notice of Membership Roster for the Agency's Senior Executive 
Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice is to add the approved candidate listed below to 
the standing roster for service on the Agency's SES Performance Review 
Board. The member is as follows: John Wilkinson.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa McCoy (202) 712-5872 or Teresa 
Spikes (202) 712-5638.

    Dated: November 21, 1997.
Sherrie Hailsbeks,
Executive Secretary, Performance Review Board.
[FR Doc. 97-31345 Filed 11-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 10, 2021

Order 

Clerk

February 10, 2021

153828(91)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 153828

v COA: 324018

Wayne CC: 14-000152-FC

THEODORE PAUL WAFER, Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of Aaron Cyars to file a brief amicus curiae 

is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted February 5, 2021, is accepted for filing.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2098 

To repeal the funding authorization sunset and the total funding cap for 

the Essex National Heritage Area. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2021 

Mr. MOULTON (for himself and Mrs. TRAHAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To repeal the funding authorization sunset and the total 

funding cap for the Essex National Heritage Area. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ESSEX NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA. 

4 (a) REPEAL OF FUNDING AUTHORIZATION SUN5 SET.—Section 507 of division II of the Omnibus Parks 

6 and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 

7 104–333) is repealed. 

8 (b) REPEAL OF TOTAL FUNDING CAP.—Section 

9 508(a) of division II of the Omnibus Parks and Public 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2098 IH

1 Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333) 

2 is amended by striking the last sentence. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
P. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 73 ) IV-E-6 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 11:58:00 AM

Sheet 73 of 117P. 2 

# A-9o-3 * Augus t 1,200 0

SUBJECT : Presentatio n a t 200 0 EP A Regional/State/Loca

l Agenc y Modeler s Workshop FROM : TO : Da

n deRoeck , Environmenta

l Enginee r Informatio n Transfe

r an d Progra mIntegratio n Division , OAQP S Ai r Docke t #A-90-3 7 O n Jun e 15,2000, 1 gave a30-minut e presentatio n b y telephon e o n th e NS R Refor m Rulemaking to th e Modeler s Worksho p hel d i n Arlington , Virginia . The presentatio n focuse d on th e provision s addressin g Clas s I are aprotection-an are ao f interes t to EPA' s Regiona

l Office modeler s an

d Stat e an d loca l agenc y modelers . Followin g asummar y o f th e proposal , I responde d t

o severa l question s fromth e audience . Nothin g sai d durin g th e questio n & answe r perio d wa s caus e fo

r an y change s bein g made t o th e rulemakin g package . cc : Pa mSmit h (MD-12 )

EP A AI R DOCKE T
<TABLE> <S> <C>


 
 
<ARTICLE>                     UT
 
<LEGEND>                      The schedule contains summary financial
                              Information extracted from Consolidated  Balance
                              Sheet, Income Statement and Statement of Cash 
                              Flows for Consolidated Edison, Inc. and is 
                              qualified in its entirety by reference to such
                              financial statements and the notes thereto.

 </LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001047862
<NAME> Consolidated Edison, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                          1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     Dec-31-1998

<PERIOD-END>                          Sep-30-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-Mos

<BOOK-VALUE>                          Per-Book

<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>             11,341,559

<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>           345,724

<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,420,219

<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>              554,869

<OTHER-ASSETS>                        860,841

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        14,523,212

<COMMON>                              582,967

<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>             862,616

<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                   4,692,205

<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>        6,035,610

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 84,550

<PREFERRED>                           233,468

<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                  4,047,837

<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                        0

<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                 0

<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>            0

<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>         325,000

<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                 0

<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>           37,771

<LEASES-CURRENT>                      2,804

<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>        3,756,172

<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>         14,523,212

<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>             5,475,711

<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                  319,864

<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>            4,314,832

<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>            4,634,696

<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>               841,015

<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                    706

<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>        841,721

<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>              247,201

<NET-INCOME>                          594,520

<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>           13,609

<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>         580,911

<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              373,356

<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>             232,864

<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                977,966

<EPS-PRIMARY>                         2.48

<EPS-DILUTED>                         2.48


        
 

</TABLE>
#### MONI NAVARRO WELDING SHOP v. NAVARRO.

No. 38748.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
Exhibit 99.2  CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER  I, Steven Rostowsky, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Sprott Physical Gold Trust (the Trust);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Trusts other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Trust and have:  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 Trust, 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)designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c)evaluated the effectiveness of the Trust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; and  d)disclosed in this report any change in the Trusts internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Trusts internal control over financial reporting.  5. The Trusts other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Trusts auditors and the audit committee of the Trusts board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  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 Trusts ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Trusts internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 31, 2014  /s/   STEVEN ROSTOWSKYSteven   RostowskyPrincipal   Financial Officer
<Page>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.2.1

   Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Eugene R. McGrath, the Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc. (the "Company") certify that the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, which this
statement accompanies, (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                                 /s/ Eugene R. McGrath
                                                 ----------------------
                                                 Eugene R. McGrath

Dated: November 13, 2002
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129288 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129288 

 COA: 259249 
 Wayne CC: 95-010470

ANTHONY J. DIXON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 24, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
The Honorable Pasco M. Bowman became Chief Judge of the United States

1

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 18, 1998.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3656

___________

Roy Eugene Beal, Julie McKay, *

Ruth Stewart, and Karen Hughes, *

Plaintiffs-Appellants, * District Court for the

 v. *

Rubbermaid Commercial Products, *

Inc., *

Defendant-Appellee.

* Appeal from the United States

* Southern District of Iowa.

* [UNPUBLISHED]

*

___________

Submitted: April 17, 1998

Filed: May 7, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 1

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roy Eugene Beal, Julie McKay, Ruth Stuart, and Karen Hughes were

discharged from their positions with Rubbermaid Commercial Products, Inc.,

due to repeated attendance problems. They filed suit claiming that many

of the absences were exempted under the Family and Medical Leave Act

(“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, and also raising claims for breach of

contract, retaliatory discharge, and
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern 2

District of Iowa.

-2-

violations of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code § 216. Plaintiffs

appealed from the summary judgment granted by the district court to

2

Rubbermaid, challenging only the rulings on their claims under the FMLA.

Based on our review of the record we affirm on the basis of the district

court’s thorough opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Treasury approves FSM’s plan to invest $14.3 million of CPF funding in 

broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality internet to 

locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)

 

▪ Program Summary: $14.3 million for Broadband Infrastructure (100% of CPF allocation)

▪ Program Description: The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) will use their CPF award 

to construct a portion of the critical submarine fiber optic cable system, the East 

Micronesia Cable (EMC) Project, to deliver reliable broadband to multiple islands in the 

region. The EMC Project will connect to Kosrae to deliver end to end high speed 

broadband, and provides internet connectivity to Kosrae (FSM), Nauru, Pohnpei (FSM) 

and Tarawa (Kiribati). This project reflects the commitment of Australia, Japan, and the 

United States to collaborate with FSM, Kiribati, and Nauru to improve internet 

connectivity.

▪ Key State Contact: The EMC Management Committee

FSM’s 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
September 4, 2015

Mr. Luiz Leonetti

24 Nevada Avenue

Asheville, NC 28806

Dear Mr. Leonetti:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ § 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and

(b), 91.405(a)(1), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your req uest and what you

should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your June 16, 2015, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2418

, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http: //aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemptio n.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3