alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.
                                     RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                             TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
                                           (Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  JUNE            JUNE
                                                                  2000            1999
                                                                ----------     ----------

<S>                                                             <C>          <C>
Earnings

         Net Income                                             $710,067       $756,826
         Federal Income Tax                                      338,250        439,090
                                                              ----------     ----------

                    Total Earnings Before Federal Income Tax   1,048,317      1,195,916

Fixed Charges*                                                   360,309        338,556
                                                              ----------     ----------
                    Total Earnings Before Federal Income Tax
                       and Fixed Charges                      $1,408,626     $1,534,472
                                                              ==========     ==========

         * Fixed Charges

         Interest on Long-Term Debt                             $298,524       $290,520
         Amortization of Debt Discount, Premium and Expense       12,972         13,771
         Interest on Component of Rentals                         17,583         18,283
         Other Interest                                           31,230         15,982
                                                              ----------     ----------

                    Total Fixed Charges                         $360,309       $338,556
                                                              ==========     ==========



         Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                       3.91            4.53

</TABLE>
This media is not available in Regulations.gov.

This document can be viewed at the USEPA Docket Center Public Reading Room.

Address:
1301 Constitution Ave, NW

Room 3334 Washington, DC 20004
Telephone:

202

- 566

- 1744

Fax:

20 2

- 566

- 9744

Email:

docket

- customerservice@epa.gov
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A188
#### T. M. THURMAN d/b/a Thurman Electric Company v. STAR ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC., et al.

No. 53179.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 19, 1973.

In re: Star Electric Supply, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa, 270 So.2d 339.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
08/01/2012 10:13 FAX 2024835142 FAA -. OMS



### U.S. DEPARTtv1ENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASlllNGTON, D.C. In the Matter ofHeloair, Inc. 2011EA210081 Judge Not 

### Assigned NOTICE OF APPEARANCE**~008/010**

... l

f

Complainant, Federal 

### Aviation Administration, hereby notifies 

### the United States 

### Department ofTransportation, Office ofHearings, and the Respondent, pursuantto 14 C.F.R. §13.204(b), that it shall be represented in the above-stated action by the attorney listed below. All communications, notices, pleadings, or docmnents are respectfully requested to be fOIWarded
as follows:: Zachary M. Bennan Federal Aviation Administration Office of Regional 

### Counsel 1 A viarion Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 Telephone: 718 553-3258 Facsimile: 718 995-5699 Respectfully submitted,
. Alfred R Johnson, Jr. Regional Counsel
By:

# ·~a~)}-. Zachary 

## MBe an Attorney06/01/2012 10:13 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 141010/010



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day copies ofthe foregoing Notice ofAppearance were placed in the United States mail. postage prepaid, Certified Mail

- Return. Receipt Requested.addressed 

### as follows: Whit Baldwin President Heloair, Inc. 5721 Gulfstream Road Richmond, VA 23250
Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2014
Date: 

### MAY l 7 2012 /')

### I/,~·

## ~~~~~**.~**

# t.:.**~s** Paralegal Specialist Office ofRegional Counsel 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434

2
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ruben BIAS.

No. 59695.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1977.

*1012James B. Supple, Franklin, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Knowles M. Tucker, Dist. Atty., Walter J. Senette, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

DENNIS, Justice.

On our first review of this armed robbery conviction we found potentially reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to consider evidence that intoxication affected the vol-untariness of defendant’s oral inculpatory statement. Since there was no other trial error, we remanded for another hearing on the voluntariness of defendant’s statement. *State*v. *Bias,*337 So.2d 426 (La.1976).

After hearing testimony by defense witnesses and State rebuttal witnesses, the district court found that the statement had been made voluntarily. Defendant appealed and contends that the trial court erred in ruling that the defendant’s statement was admissible because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it had been made voluntarily.

We agree with the defendant that the State must prove affirmatively and beyond a reasonable doubt that the inculpato-ry statement was made freely and voluntarily. La.R.S. 15:451-52; La.C.Cr.P. art. 703(C); *State v. Trudell,*350 So.2d 658 (La. 1977); *State v. Glover,*343 So.2d 118 (La. 1977). However, in reviewing the trial judge’s application of this standard to the evidence his conclusions on credibility are entitled to the respect due those made by one who saw the witnesses and heard them testify. *State v. Adams,*347 So.2d 195 (La. 1977); *State v. Ross,*343 So.2d 722 (La. 1977); *State v. Simmons,*340 So.2d 1357 (La.1976); *State v. Hills,*337 So.2d 1155 (La.1976).

When we assess the evidence taken in the district court on this issue with these principles in mind, we find that the trial judge did not commit error. Testimony adduced at the evidentiary hearing indicated that, although the defendant had been drinking on the evening of his arrest, he had not consumed any alcoholic liquids for several hours prior to his interrogation. Further, the defendant demonstrated at the hearing through his remarkable recall of that evening’s events that he probably was not so inebriated that his will was overborne or that his statement was rendered *1013involuntary. The police officers who testified for the prosecution stated that defendant was not noticeably intoxicated at the time of his arrest and that he appeared to be well oriented and to understand his rights. The district judge in his oral remarks indicated that he considered the testimony of the defendant, his father and his friends to have been colored by his predicament. There is a sufficient basis in the evidence to justify the district judge’s decision to discount or disregard the testimony of these witnesses.

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

SANDERS, C. J., concurs.
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the quarterly report of Northeast Utilities (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Charles W. Shivery, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the registrant and David R. McHale, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the registrant.    /s/Charles W. ShiveryCharles W. ShiveryChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer   /s/David R. McHaleDavid R. McHaleSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    Date:  November 7, 2008   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 the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Lee E. MALLORY, Sr., father of Lee E. Mallory, Jr., a minor, Appellant, v. Lee E. MALLORY, Jr., a minor, by and through his next friend and natural guardian, Edith Mallory, Appellee.

No. FF-269.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 14, 1977.

Ernest D. Jackson, Sr., Jacksonville, for appellant.

Ralph Roberts of Roberts & Roberts, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon considering the briefs, the record and oral argument, we find no reversible error.

Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.

MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

BOYER, Acting C. J., concurs specially.

BOYER, Acting Chief Judge,

concurring specially.

Lee E. Mallory, Jr., a minor, was seriously injured and burned in a vehicular acci*961dent. His father, Lee E. Mallory, Sr., had theretofore procured a policy of medical insurance by which his minor son was covered. The insurance company paid medical expenses on account of the minor’s injuries in the sum of $2,680.59. Thereafter the minor’s parents, Lee E. Mallory, Sr. and Edith Mallory, were divorced (the marriage was dissolved under Florida law) and custody of the minor was awarded to the mother.

The insurance carrier for the driver of the vehicle which caused young Mallory’s injuries had coverage of only $15,000. With the consent of all parties the carrier deposited its limitation of liability, $15,000, in the registry of the court. The learned trial judge found, inter alia, “that in view of the severe, permanent injuries and disfigurement that the minor Plaintiff has suffered, it would be unconscionable to apportion the proceeds of $15,000 previously paid into the Registry of this Court between the minor Plaintiff and the Defendant father.” (The mother made no claim for loss of services nor otherwise, but the father had sought payment in full of the $2,680.59 paid by his medical insurance carrier.)

I concur in affirmance but in doing so I am of the view that we should explain that notwithstanding the citation by the learned trial judge of *Yordon v. Savage,*279 So.2d 844 (Fla.1973), and appellant’s reliance thereon it clearly appears that the holding of that case has no application to the facts sub judice. Completely outside the holding of the *Yordon*case, the trial judge, under the facts of this case, had the right and duty of apportioning the proceeds' of the insurance policy and in view of the severe injuries suffered by the minor Mallory the judge did not abuse his discretion in apportioning no part thereof to the father on account of medical expenses paid by the medical insurance carrier.
U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

EMBARGOED UNTIL 9 a.m. (EDT) October 17, 2006

CONTACT Brookly McLaughlin (202) 622-2920 

 

Treasury International Capital Data For August 

Treasury International Capital (TIC) data for August are released today and posted on the U.S. 

Treasury web site (www.treas.gov/tic). The next release date, which will report on data for 

September, is scheduled for November 16, 2006. 

Net foreign purchases of long-term securities were $116.8 billion. 

• Net foreign purchases of long-term domestic U.S. securities were $119.5 billion. Of this, 

net purchases by foreign official institutions were $30.1 billion and net purchases by private 

foreign investors were $89.4 billion. 

• U.S. residents purchased a net $2.7 billion in long-term foreign securities. 

Foreigners’ Transactions in Long-Term Securities with U.S. Residents 

(Billions of dollars, not seasonally adjusted) 

12 Months Through

2004 2005 Aug-05 Aug-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 

1 Gross Purchases of Domestic Securities 15178.9 17177.4 16478.8 18603.5 1923.1 1667.4 1453.2 1682.0

2 Gross Sales of Domestic Securities 14262.4 16166.8 15548.4 17525.5 1835.6 1582.7 1398.7 1562.5

3 Domestic Securities Purchased, net (line 1 less line 2) /1 916.5 1010.6 930.3 1078.0 87.5 84.7 54.5 119.5

4 Private, net /2 680.9 890.5 778.3 930.6 89.1 82.4 31.8 89.4

5 Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 150.9 270.1 187.6 192.9 21.8 31.4 -1.7 29.0

6 Gov't Agency Bonds, net 205.7 187.8 202.9 208.5 26.1 18.5 6.6 21.5

7 Corporate Bonds, net 298.0 353.2 333.1 416.5 39.6 37.7 18.0 34.7

8 Equities, net 26.2 79.4 54.7 112.8 1.5 -5.1 8.8 4.2

9 Official, net 235.6 120.1 152.0 147.4 -1.6 2.3 22.7 30.1

10 Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 201.1 68.5 107.6 45.7 -13.6 -4.4 8.2 17.4

11 Gov't Agency Bonds, net 20.8 31.6 26.8 65.6 8.5 4.4 11.8 9.8

12 Corporate Bonds, net 11.5 19.0 16.6 25.4 2.4 1.1 1.0 2.8

13 Equities, net 2.2 1.0 1.0 10.8 1.2 1.2 1.6 0.2

14 Gross Purchases of Foreign Securities 3123.1 3700.0 3323.1 4812.1 539.3 447.0 365.4 408.0

15 Gross Sales of Foreign Securities 3276.0 3872.4 3507.7 4995.4 559.8 456.3 387.1 410.7

16 Foreign Securities Purchased, net (line 14 less line 15) /3 -152.8 -172.4 -184.6 -183.3 -20.5 -9.2 -21.7 -2.7

17 Foreign Bonds Purchased, net -67.9 -45.1 -66.9 -94.2 -15.6 -10.3 -18.8 -9.9

18 Foreign Equities Purchased, net -85.0 -127.3 -117.7 -89.0 -4.9 1.1 -2.9 7.1

19 Net Long-Term Flows (line 3 plus line 16) 763.6 838.2 745.8 894.7 67.0 75.5 32.9 116.8

/1 Net foreign purchases of U.S. securities (+)

/2 Includes international and regional organizations

/3 Net U.S. purchases of foreign securities (-)
256 La. 893

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Frank JOHNSON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50620.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 8, 1970.

In re: Frank Johnson applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari and mandamus.

Writs refused. The application is insufficient for us to exercise our original or supervisory powers.
Interim Report of Costs Incurred by the District of Columbia and Territories through June 30 

Data as of July 23, 2020 – Revised August 24, 2020

1

The Department of the Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) is responsible for monitoring 

and oversight of the receipt, disbursement, and use of Coronavirus Relief Fund payments. On 

July 2, 2020, OIG notified each prime recipient of an Interim Report requirement for reporting 

costs incurred during the period of March 1 through June 30, 2020.

Treasury CRF Guidance (updated June 30, 2020) clarified that that for a cost to be considered to 

have been incurred, performance or delivery must occur during the covered period but payment 

of funds need not be made during that time (though it is generally expected that this will take 

place within 90 days of a cost being incurred).

The table below shows the distribution of payments allocated to the District of Columbia and 

Territories. ‘Total Costs Incurred’ are a direct reflection of the self-reported recipient 

submissions and does not include analysis of supporting documentation or qualitative data that 

accompanied the spreadsheet form provided. Additionally, this data was not verified or audited 

by Treasury. ‘Percent Spent’ displays the ‘Total Costs Incurred’ divided by the ‘Payment 

Amount.’ 

The amounts obligated by recipients may be larger than the ‘Total Costs Incurred.’ Obligation 

activity will be collected in the Department of the Treasury OIG’s GrantSolutions reporting 

portal for prime recipients and reported by the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 

(PRAC) in early October. The data will available on the PRAC’s website at 

https://pandemic.oversight.gov.

All dollar figures are rounded to the nearest whole dollar and percentages to one decimal point. 

Payment Amount Total Costs Incurred Percent Spent

District of Columbia $495,138,064 $142,409,663 28.8%

Puerto Rico $2,240,625,864 $628,702,384 28.1%

American Samoa $35,173,620 $8,775,904 25.0%

Guam $117,968,258 $29,124,815 24.7%

Northern Mariana Islands $36,284,218 $5,027,863 13.9%

Virgin Islands $74,809,978 $20,457,253 27.3%
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 2nd QUARTER 2015

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 3/26 3/30 4/1 35.00 26.00 24.00 25.00 88.00 22.00

3&6&12 MO BILLS 4/2 4/6 4/8 30.00 26.00 24.00 111.00 -31.00

4/9 4/13 4/15 30.00 24.00 24.00 91.00 -13.00

4/16 4/20 4/22 25.00 23.00 24.00 94.00 -22.00

4/23 4/27 4/29 25.00 22.00 24.00 25.00 114.00 -18.00

4/30 5/4 5/6 25.00 22.00 24.00 86.00 -15.00

5/7 5/11 5/13 30.00 22.00 24.00 85.00 -9.00

5/14 5/18 5/20 30.00 22.00 24.00 81.00 -5.00

5/21 5/25 5/27 30.00 22.00 24.00 25.00 107.00 -6.00

5/28 6/1 6/3 25.00 22.00 24.00 80.00 -9.00

6/4 6/8 6/10 25.00 22.00 24.00 85.00 -14.00

6/11 6/15 6/17 25.00 22.00 24.00 84.00 -13.00

6/18 6/22 6/24 25.00 22.00 24.00 25.00 107.00 -11.00

1069.00 1213.00 -144.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

CMB Funds: 0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

3-year Note 4/2 4/7 4/15 24.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 4/2 4/8 4/15 21.00 0.00

30-year Bond ® 4/2 4/9 4/15 13.00 0.00 61.09 -3.09

5-year TIPS 4/16 4/23 4/30 18.00 0.00

2-year note 4/23 4/27 4/30 26.00 0.00

5-year note 4/23 4/28 4/30 35.00 0.00

7-year note 4/23 4/29 4/30 29.00 0.00

2-year FRN 4/23 4/29 4/30 15.00 0.00 77.89 45.11

3-year Note 5/6 5/12 5/15 24.00 0.00

10-year Note 5/6 5/13 5/15 24.00 0.00

30-year Bond 5/6 5/14 5/15 16.00 0.00 68.47 -4.47

10-year TIPS ® 5/14 5/21 5/29 13.00 0.00

2-year FRN ® 5/21 5/27 5/29 13.00 0.00 0.00 26.00

2-year note 5/21 5/26 6/1 26.00 0.00

5-year note 5/21 5/27 6/1 35.00 0.00

7-year note 5/21 5/28 6/1 29.00 0.00 75.86 14.14

3-year Note 6/4 6/9 6/15 24.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 6/4 6/10 6/15 21.00 0.00

30-year Bond ® 6/4 6/11 6/15 13.00 0.00 34.26 23.74

2-year FRN ® 6/18 6/24 6/26 13.00 0.00 0.00 13.00

2-year note 6/18 6/23 6/30 26.00 0.00

5-year note 6/18 6/24 6/30 35.00 0.00

7-year note 6/18 6/25 6/30 29.00 0.00

30-year TIPS ® 6/11 6/18 6/30 7.00 0.00 74.13 22.87

529.00 391.71 137.29

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: -7
#### F. A. CHASTAIN CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Elliot STANFORD et al., Appellees.

No. 69-1030.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 16, 1971.

*299J. Leo McShane, Becker & Kimler, Miami, for appellants.

David M. Pincus, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was begun as an interlocutory appeal from a post trial motion. After hearing on appellee’s motion to dismiss, this court, acting upon authority of State ex rel. Poe v. Allen, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 745, ordered that the appeal should proceed as an appeal from the final judgment. F. A. Chastain Construction, Inc. v. Stanford, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 421.

The appellant, F. A. Chastain Construction, Inc., began this litigation with the filing of a creditor’s bill against the ap-pellees. The complaint alleged that the appellant had instituted suit against the appellee, Elliot Stanford, upon three contracts and that the suits were pending in the Civil Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida. The creditor’s suit prayed that the court set aside certain transfers of real property made by Elliot Stanford to Stratford Demetri. Thereafter, amended complaints in the nature of creditor’s bills were filed and in the last of these the plaintiff is Jack West as trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of Elliot Stanford and Enchanted Lake Homes, Inc., bankrupts, as successor to F. A. Chastain Construction, Inc. This complaint alleged that it was prosecuted on behalf of all the creditors of the named bankrupts. The complaint adopted by reference the allegations of the original complaint as to the indebtedness due F. A. Chastain Construction, Inc. Answers were filed and a final hearing was held. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants and recited in the judgment that the plaintiff had failed to prove: (1) the existence of any creditor at the time of the transfer of the real property involved, (2) that the transfer of the property was without valid consideration.

Appellant presents two points each claiming error upon the respective finding of fact. Under point one he urges that as trustees in bankruptcy, he does not have to prove the existence of a judgment creditor. See Coleman v. Alcock, 272 F.2d 618 (5th Cir. 1959). This is undoubtedly true but the proof of the existence of at least a contingent creditor is required by F.S. § 726.01, F.S.A., and by the case law. See Whetstone v. Coslick, 117 Fla. 203, 207, 157 So. 666, 667 (1934); Weathersbee v. Dekle, 107 Fla. 517, 145 So. 198 (1933); Money v. Powell, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 702.

The second point urges that the trial court erred in finding that the transfer from Elliot Stanford and Enchanted Lake Homes, Inc. was not made with intent to hinder, delay or defraud their creditors. There was evidence from which the court could have found the transfer void but the evidence was controverted by the testimony of the defendants. It is not our function to substitute our determination for that of the trial court.

The appellant having failed to demonstrate error, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 3
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                         607,076
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,088,433
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 24,583,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,821,398
<PP&E>                                      35,186,326
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,016,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,226,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,681,840
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          730,739
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,855,663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,226,055
<SALES>                                     32,408,792
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,408,792
<CGS>                                       27,399,767
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,088,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (64,164)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             634,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                749,397
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            734,397
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   734,397
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>