alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Fw: PSD Palmdale PSD Palmdale Steven John Steven John to: Gerardo Rios 09/14/2011 09:09 AM History: This message has been forwarded.

Steven John Southern California Field Office U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone 213-244-1804 FAX 213-244-1850 john .steven@epa.gov ----- Forwarded by Steven John/R9/USEPA/US on 09/14/2011 09:09 AM -----

From: Steven John/R9/USEPA/US To: Jane Williams <dcapjane@aol.com> Date: 09/13/2011 03:32 PM Subject: PSD Palmdale

Hi Jane -- I didn't get any traction on your request for an extension. Apparently they just denied another request for the same extension. I explained that you were preparing to provide comments to EPA in a public hearing in Chicago and needed more time to prepare comments on this permit (he was concerned that you had not provided something in writing requesting an extension nor had you provided any justification ... which is why I mentioned the EPA hearing in Chicago you were preparing for).. Gerardo suggested that you simply submit all the comments you have already prepare , including those from your comments on the State's licensing process.

sj
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. RAUL VI LL AV I CE NCI O- BURR UEL, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50559 D. C. No . 3 : 0 8 - c r - 0 2 5 0 9 - I EG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia I rm aE . G onz a l e z , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , W . F L E T C H E R , an d M U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R aul V i l l avi c e nc i o- B urrue l appe a l s f r om the 46- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d on re m and fol l ow i ng an appeal fr om hi s j ury- tri al conv i ct i on for a tt em pt ed entryaf t er de port a t i on a nd m a ki ng af a l s e c l a i m t o c i t i z e ns hi p, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326 a nd 18 U . S . C . § 911, r e s pe c t i ve l y . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, 

# FI LED OC T 04 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 50559 2 a n d w e a f

f i rm. V i l l a vi c e nc i o- B urrue l a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n appl y i ng the 16- l evel cr i m e of vi ol ence enhancem entun der U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2(b)(1)(A )( i i ). T hat is s u e is f o r e c lo s e db yo u rd e c is io n in U ni ted States v. V

i l lavi ce nci o-B urruel , 608 F . 3 d 5 5 6 (9 th C i r. 2 0 1 0 ), as h e ack n o w l ed g es. H e r ai se s tw o add i t i on al cont ent i on s of proce du ra l error. F i rs t , he ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o con si der the un w arrant ed se nt ence di spar i ty c re at ed bythe s pl i tbe tw e e n thi s c ourta nd the F i f th C i r c ui ton appl i c a t i on of the c r i m e of vi ol e nc e e nha nc e m e ntt o c onvi c t i ons unde rC a l i f orni aP e na l C ode § 422. T he r e c o r d b e lie s th is c o n te n tio n a n d m a k e s c le a rth a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s f u lly ap p r is e d o f

th e in te r - c ir c u it s p lit. N e x t, h e c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile d to a d d r e s s h is a r g u m e n ts re gardi ng hi s r ehabi l i t at i on si nce the t i m e of hi s i ni t i al se nt enci ng . T he re cord r e f l e c t s tha tthe c ourte nt e rt a i ne d hi s a r gum e nt s , a nd i t s s t a t e m e nt s a ts e nt e nc i ng w er e s uffi ci entt o p erm i tm eani ng ful appel l at e r evi ew of i t s bel ow -G ui del i nes s e n te n c e , th e s u b s ta n tiv e r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f w h ic h s e n te n c e is n o t c h a lle n g e d . See U n ite d S ta te s v . Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 2-93 , 99 5 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). AF F I RME D.
Memo

Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Quarter SOMA

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Balance Redemptions

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6) (7)

Jan - Mar

2011 Actual 470 265 (20) 245 (225) 118 0

Apr - Jun

2011 Actual 149 190 (22) 167 19 137 0

Jul - Sep

2011 Actual 342 286 (23) 264 (79) 58 0

Oct - Dec

2011 Actual 284 310 2 312 28 86 0

Jan - Mar

2012 Actual 440 401 (3) 398 (42) 43 0

Apr - Jun

2012 Actual 129 172 5 177 48 91 0

Jul - Sep

2012 Actual 234 264 (36) 228 (6) 85 (32)

Oct - Dec

2012 Actual 291 297 1 298 7 93 (1)

Jan - Mar

2013 Actual 354 349 (8) 341 (14) 79 0

Apr - Jun

2013 Actual (73) (11) (7) (18) 56 135 0

Jul - Sep

2013 Actual 205 197 (38) 159 (46) 88 0

Oct - Dec

2013 Actual 179 264 (11) 253 74 162 0

Jan - Mar

2014 Actual 275 265 (10) 254 (20) 142 0

Apr - Jun

2014 Actual (60) (64) 1 (63) (3) 139 0

Jul - Sep

2014 Actual 176 205 (10) 195 19 158 0

Oct - Dec

2014 Actual 170 227 8 236 65 223 0

Jan - Mar

2015 Actual 268 141 3 144 (123) 100 0

Apr - Jun

2015 Actual (120) 57 (22) 35 154 254 (0)

Jul - Sep August 5, 2015 132 127 (25) 102 (29) 225 (0)

2015 Actual 163 133 (26) 107 (56) 199 (0)

Forecast Revisions 31 6 (1) 5 (26) (26) (0)

Oct - Dec August 5, 2015 205 270 (15) 255 50 275 (0)

2015 November 4, 2015 206 344 (11) 333 127 325 (0)

Forecast Revisions 1 74 3 78 77 50 0

Jan - Mar

2016 November 4, 2016 239 165 9 174 (65) 260 (0)

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2258 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2258

  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit the award of 
     Federal funds to institutions of higher education that employ 
   instructors funded by the Chinese Communist Party, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2021

  Mr. Steube introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit the award of 
     Federal funds to institutions of higher education that employ 
   instructors funded by the Chinese Communist Party, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Higher Education from 
Foreign Threats Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF INSTRUCTORS FUNDED BY THE CHINESE 
              COMMUNIST PARTY.

    Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et 
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 117 the following:

``SEC. 117A. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF INSTRUCTORS FUNDED BY THE 
              CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY.

    ``(a) Restriction on Eligibility.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, no institution of higher education shall be eligible 
to receive funds or any other form of financial assistance under any 
Federal program for an award year in which the institution employs an 
CCP-funded instructor.
    ``(b) Resumption of Eligibility.--An institution of higher 
education that loses eligibility to receive funds for an award year as 
described in subsection (a) may regain eligibility to receive such 
funds in a subsequent award year by demonstrating, to the satisfaction 
of the Secretary, that the institution no longer employs a CCP-funded 
instructor.
    ``(c) CCP-Funded Instructor Defined.--In this section, the term 
`CCP-funded instructor' means a professor, teacher, or any other 
individual who--
            ``(1) provides instruction directly to the students of an 
        institution of higher education; and
            ``(2) received funds, directly or indirectly, from the 
        Chinese Communist Party while employed by such institution.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
March 25, 2015 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11192 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA 

Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. 

FAA-2014-0850.

Dear Sir or Madam; 

 Viking Unmanned Aerial Systems Inc was issued an Exemption numbered 11192 

(hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting 3d Mapping and collecting

Sensor Data requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow for operations in Oil and 

Gas Industry, Pipeline Inspection, Ranching, Construction and Infrastructure Inspection. 

VikingUAS would also like to include additional types of unmanned aircraft system

(UAS) to include multirotors such as Quad Copters, Hexacopters and Octocopters that 

fully complies with the conditions of our exemption. We also would like to have 

amended our PIC and Observer requirements from part 21, 61.113 (a) and (b), 61.113 (a), 

61.315 (a) which in our Section 333 Petition FAA-2014-0850 we requested relief from 

the above to include reducing the medical certificate requirement to the same 

requirements as that of a sports or recreational pilot. We ask that our pilots be required to 

only hold a minimum of a sport pilot’s certificate and at a minimum requirement for 

medical holder of a driver’s license in the United States of America. 

 VikingUAS wishes to operate our manufactured platforms such as the 

VikingUAS FF-X4/X8 the VikingUAS Patriot X4/X8 Multirotor and the VikingUAS X6 

Model 800 Multicopters , and our fixed wing the VikingUAS VikingONE fixed wing 

under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. Attached hereto, and 

submitted as a confidential document, is the Flight Operations and Procedures Manual 

(FOPM) for the additional UAS. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full 

compliance with the terms of the Exemption. 

 As this is an amendment to an existing exemption VikingUAS respectfully 

submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal 

Register for the requested amendment. 

 Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this 

request for an amendment to the Exemption. 

 Sincerely yours, 

 Christopher M. Taylor- CEO 

 Viking Unmanned Aerial Systems Inc
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03181

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 03181\03181_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03181\03181_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03181\03181_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03181\03181_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03181\03181_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03181\03181_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

03181\Certification Statement Plant ID 03181.pdf Plant certification statement

x 03181\Supplemental Documentation\A5-2 Aerial Map Plant ID No. 03181_CBI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03181\Supplemental Documentation\A5-3 Water Balance Plant ID No. 03181_CBI.TIF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03181\Supplemental Documentation\03181_CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
257 La. 601

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Adam A. LAWRENCE v. Louis A. HEYD, Jr., Criminal Sheriff, Parish of Orleans.

No. 51162.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 1971.

In re: Adam A. Lawrence applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ granted. Trial Court order increasing bail to $25,000.00 is rescinded and set aside. The State’s relief under the facts reflected in the returns is under C.Cr. P. Art. 644 and not by increased bail.
1 The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2959

___________ Andrew L. Williams, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Arkansas Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 18, 2000 Filed: February 28, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Andrew Williams appeals the judgment the District Court 1 entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) in his employment discriminationcase. After reviewing the record, we conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’s motion for default judgment because the original defendants had filed a motion to dismiss and their answer was not yet due. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A); Harris v. St. Louis Police Dep't , 164 F.3d 1085, 1086 (8th-2-

Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (standard of review). Nor did the District Court abuse its discretion by finding the ADC had not “failed to respond” to a discovery request, and thus denying Williams’s motion for summary judgment; or by later ruling that the ADC hadcomplied with an order granting Williams’s motion to compel discovery. See Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Int’l, Inc ., 160 F.3d 428, 430 (8th Cir. 1998) (appeals court reviews district court’s application of discovery rules for abuse of discretion). Finally, we see no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s denial of appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, which Williams had opposed; or in the denial of Williams’s motion to act as co-counsel, cf. UnitedStates v. Einfeldt , 138 F.3d 373, 378 (8th Cir.) (district court has discretion to provide standby counsel for criminal defendant), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 851 (1998); UnitedStates v. Brown , No. 95-1616, 1995 WL 732803, at *3 (8th Cir. Dec. 12, 1995) (unpublished per curiam) (criminal defendant does not have constitutional right to act as co-counsel), cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1174 (1996). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2306 

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to apportionments 

to small transit intensive cities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2021 

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Mr. STANTON, Mr. PALAZZO, and 

Mr. PANETTA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to 

apportionments to small transit intensive cities, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Community 

5 Transit Improvement Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPORTIONMENTS. 

7 Section 5336(h)(3) of title 49, United States Code, 

8 is amended to read as follows: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2306 IH

1 ‘‘(3) of amounts not apportioned under para2 graphs (1) and (2), 3.0 percent shall be apportioned 

3 to urbanized areas with populations of less than 

4 200,000 in accordance with subsection (i);’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Richard William TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ted STANNEY, Sergeant/Supervisor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-55001.

D.C. No. CV-01-07010-GHK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*865Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Richard William Turner appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), of Turner’s action against the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and Sergeant Ted Stanney. Turner also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion seeking to disqualify the presiding judge. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review 'de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *Crum v. Circus Circus Enters.,*231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir.2000). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a recusal motion. *Leslie v. Grupo ICA,*198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

Dismissal was proper because Turner’s complaint alleged that all parties were citizens of the same state and presented no federal question. *See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express,*294 F.3d 1179, 1183 n. 2 (9th Cir.2002).

Because Turner sought to disqualify the district judge solely on the basis of prior adverse decisions, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for recusal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 455(a); *Leslie,*198 F.3d at 1160.

Turner’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

Vw\_ — —- (O I KEY NUMBER SYSTEM/ V. i

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Annual Report of Electromed, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K Amendment for the year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert D. Hansen, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §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.

Dated:
October 15, 2010

/s/ Robert D.
Hansen
Robert D. Hansen
Chief Executive Officer

- 7 -

---
Code Meaning

A Active Injection

C Completed

DA Dry and Abandoned

EXP Permit Expired

GDH Gas - Dry Hole

INT Intent Received (PW is now being used)

ODH Oil - Dry Hole

PA Plugged and Abandoned

PR Producing

PW Permitted Well (Not completed yet)

SI Shut In

TA Temporarily Abandoned

UN Uncontrolled (the well is not governed by an allowable)
#### Jesse WOODS, Appellant, v. Jeanetta Leeta EVANS, Appellee.

No. 71-4.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 8, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Humes T. Lasher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
256 La. 358

#### ROY YOUNG, INC. v. DELCAMBRE, INC. et al.

No. 50590.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Richard E. Dunham applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vermilion. 233 So.2d 612.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in the judgment.
#### Ruth SINGLETON, Appellant, v. Evelyn WILLIAMS, Appellee.

No. 2396.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

June 30, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sanjay Tyagi, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 634]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), rendered September 23, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION			

Washington, D.C. 20549			

			

FORM 10-QSB			

QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES AND 			

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934			

For Quarter Ended December 31, 2000	

 

0-643			Corning Natural Gas Corporation

(Commission File Number)			(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

New York 16-0397420

(State or other jurisdiction of (IRS Employer ID No)

incorporation or organization)

 

330 W William Street, PO Box 58, Corning, New York 14830

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

607-936-3755

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

 

 

 

Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant(1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934 during the past 12 months and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for at least the past 90 days. Yes__ X__ No _____

 

Number of shares of Common Stock outstanding at the end of the quarter -- 460,000. There is only one class of Common Stock and no Preference Stock outstanding.

CORNING NATURAL GAS CORPORATION

FORM 10-QSB

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000

As the Company's business is seasonal, the interim results should not be used as an indication of what results for the twelve months of the fiscal year 2001 may be.

Consolidated revenue of $8,200,000 for the quarter ended December 31, 2000 increased $2,200,000 from the quarter ended December 31, 1999 due primarily to an increase in Gas Company revenue. Gas Company revenue increased $2,200,000 due to an increasein the cost of gas at the wellhead, which is billed to customers. Increases and decreases in gas costs are passed through to customers, and are profit-neutral to the company.			

	 	 	

Consolidated net income for the quarter ended December 31, 2000 was $91,800, compared to $214,400 in the same quarter the previous year . Earnings from gas operations decreased $111,800 due primarily to a decrease in capacity assignment revenues andincreased interest costs. The Appliance Company earnings of $109,400 are up $15,000 due to an increase in merchandise sales margins and interest income. The Tax Center International and The Foodmart Plaza earnings continue to meet forecast levels,contributing an additional $20,800 to consolidated earnings. Corning Realty experienced a loss of $19,000 due to one-time costs incurred in December 2000. Corning Mortgage experienced a loss of $9,800 as expected as its license approval from the New YorkState banking authority was just received in November, 2000.			

	 	 	 

Segment Overview:			

The following table reflects the first quarter results of the segments consistent with the Company's internal financial reporting process. The following results are used in part, by management, both in evaluating the performance of, and in allocatingresources to, each of these segments.
254 La. 751

#### SUCCESSION of E. W. K. ANDRAU.

No. 49993.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 29, 1969.

In re: Southwest National Association, Houston, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

The application is denied. There is no error in the ruling complained of.