alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CITY GAS COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. RO-MONT SOUTH GREEN CONDOMINIUM “R”, INC., etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 77-1274.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 13, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 2, 1977.

*791Dubbin, Schiff, Berkman & Dubbin and Evan Langbein, Miami, for appellant.

Smith, Mandler, Smith, Werner & Jaco-bowitz and Patricia Silver, Miami Beach, Robert Bakerman and Ira B. Price, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, the appellant seeks review of an order denying a motion to dissolve an injunction. The injunction required the ap-pellees to deposit money periodically in the registry of the court and the clerk to turn the monies over to the appellant for gas services, when it was required to resume serving a 644-unit condominium.

At the time the order under review was entered, the appellant had been made a party-defendant by court order; had been served with process and a complaint. The principal grounds urged for reversal are alleged defects in the procedures utilized by the chancellor at the time of the entry of the temporary injunction.

We determine this appeal not on the record as was before the chancellor at the time of the entry of the temporary injunction, but as the record was at the time the motion to dissolve came on for hearing. In this connection, see: *Belk’s Department Store, Miami, Inc. v. Scherman,*117 So.2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); *DeCarlucci v. Granulite, Incorporated,*171 So.2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).

From an examination of all the pleadings and the statements of respective counsel, we cannot say that the trial court abused any discretion in denying the motion to dissolve and, therefore, the order under review be and the same is hereby affirmed. This, of course, is without prejudice to the appellant seeking appropriate relief in the trial court as to the adequacy of the amount to be posted periodically in the registry of the court by the appellees, and' to seek such other relief as may be necessary to require compliance with the temporary injunction.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        873
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,359
<PP&E>                                           3,477
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,601
<BONDS>                                          1,696
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        182
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,154
<SALES>                                          6,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                            3,505
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    433
<INCOME-TAX>                                       156
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                260
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       178
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**
I, Jimmy W. Hayes, Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief FinancialOfficer of Cox Communications, Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cox Communications,Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [omitted in accordance with SectionIII.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986] for the registrant and have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
(b) [omitted in accordance with Section III.E. of SEC Release No.34-47986];
(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: November 4, 2004   /s/ Jimmy W. HayesJimmy W. Hayes  Executive Vice President, Financeand Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 15




To the Board of Trustees and Shareholders
   of Northeast Utilities

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim
financial information of Northeast Utilities and subsidiaries for the periods
ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, as indicated in our report dated May 9, 2003;
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 March 31, 2003, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-34622, 333-55142
and 33-40156 on Forms S-3 and Nos. 33-44814, 33-63023, 333-52413 and 333-
52415 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
May 9, 2003
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 1st QUARTER 2014

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 12/26 12/30 1/2 35.00 31.00 28.00 85.00 9.00

3&6&12 MO BILLS 1/2 1/6 1/9 30.00 31.00 28.00 120.00 -31.00

1/9 1/13 1/16 30.00 31.00 28.00 20.00 95.00 14.00

1/16 1/20 1/23 30.00 31.00 28.00 95.00 -6.00

1/23 1/27 1/30 30.00 31.00 28.00 94.00 -5.00

1/30 2/3 2/6 30.00 31.00 28.00 114.00 -25.00

2/6 2/10 2/13 30.00 31.00 28.00 20.00 89.00 20.00

2/13 2/17 2/20 35.00 31.00 28.00 88.00 6.00

2/20 2/24 2/27 35.00 31.00 28.00 87.00 7.00

2/27 3/3 3/6 35.00 31.00 28.00 111.00 -17.00

3/6 3/10 3/13 35.00 31.00 28.00 21.00 86.00 29.00

3/13 3/17 3/20 35.00 31.00 28.00 91.00 3.00

3/20 3/24 3/27 35.00 31.00 28.00 91.00 3.00

1253.00 1246.00 7.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

64-DAY BILL 2/11 2/12 40.00 25.00

Matures 4/18

64-DAY BILL 2/18 2/19 35.00 20.00

Matures 4/25

40-DAY BILL 3/4 3/5 30.00 20.00

Matures 4/15

CMB Funds: 65.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

3-year Note 1/2 1/7 1/15 30.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 1/2 1/8 1/15 21.00 0.00

30-year Bond ® 1/2 1/9 1/15 13.00 0.00 59.25 4.75

10-year TIPS 1/16 1/23 1/31 15.00 0.00

2-year note 1/23 1/28 1/31 32.00 0.00

5-year note 1/23 1/29 1/31 35.00 0.00

7-year note 1/23 1/30 1/31 29.00 0.00

2-year FRN 1/16 1/22 1/31 10.00 #N/A 66.93 54.07

3-year Note 2/5 2/11 2/18 30.00 0.00

10-year Note 2/5 2/12 2/18 24.00 0.00

30-year Bond 2/5 2/13 2/18 16.00 0.00 60.82 9.18

30-year TIPS ® 2/13 2/20 2/28 9.00 0.00

2-year note 2/20 2/25 2/28 32.00 0.00

5-year note 2/20 2/26 2/28 35.00 0.00

7-year note 2/20 2/27 2/28 29.00 0.00

2-year FRN® 2/13 2/19 2/28 10.00 0.00 69.21 45.79

3-year Note 3/5 3/11 3/17 30.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 3/5 3/12 3/17 21.00 0.00

30-year Bond ® 3/5 3/13 3/17 13.00 0.00 32.00 32.00

2-year note 3/20 3/25 3/31 32.00 0.00

5-year note 3/20 3/26 3/31 35.00 0.00

7-year note 3/20 3/27 3/31 29.00 0.00

10-year TIPS ® 3/13 3/20 3/31 13.00 0.00

2-year FRN® 3/13 3/19 3/31 10.00 0.00 71.44 47.56

553.00 359.65 193.35

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 265
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   6-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          OCT-31-2000
[PERIOD-END]                               APR-30-2000
[CASH]                                          15,087
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                        0
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                    460,118
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                               488,812
[PP&E]                                         299,117
[DEPRECIATION]                                  59,044
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                 755,342
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                        2,551,810
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                     1,048,218
[OTHER-SE]                                 (3,044,249)
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                   755,342
[SALES]                                        253,565
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               253,565
[CGS]                                           65,071
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                        0
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                               826,196
[LOSS-PROVISION]                             (637,702)
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                             122,131
[INCOME-PRETAX]                              (759,833)
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                                  0
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                 (759,833)
[EPS-BASIC]                                     (0.10)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                   (0.10)
</TABLE>
# EPA Registration Jacket 2749-536______________________________________________________________

Page 17_ is not included in this copy.

Pages through are not included in this copy.

_______________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of
information:

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

__X__ Identity of product impurities.

_____ Description of the product manufacturing process.

_____ Description of quality control procedures.

_____ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

_____ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

_____ FIFRA registration data.

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______.

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

_____ Proprietary information pertaining to the chemical composition of an inert ingredient provided by the source of the ingredient.

_____ Attorney-Client Privilege.

_____ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.

_____ Internal Deliberative Information.

* The information not included is generally considered confidential by product registrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page _ is not included in this copy.

Pages 113 through 115 are not included in this copy.

_______________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of
information:

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

_____ Identity of product impurities.

_____ Description of the product manufacturing process.

_____ Description of quality control procedures.

_____ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

__X__ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

_____ FIFRA registration data.

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______.

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

_____ Proprietary information pertaining to the chemical composition of an inert ingredient provided by the source of the ingredient.

_____ Attorney-Client Privilege.

_____ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.

_____ Internal Deliberative Information.

* The information not included is generally considered confidential by product registrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.

_________________________________________________________________
Vanessa. 

 

I don’t mean to be a pest, but I think I’ve found 2 other items which I believe were inadvertent errors in 

the proposed Montana visibility FIP. I assume they can be corrected with minimum effort. Here are my 

thoughts: 

 

1. PM Emission Limit for Ash Grove – Formula.

The particulate emission limit proposed for Ash Grove [§52.1396(c)(2) – page 296] was taken 

from Montana’s ‘process weight’ rule (ARM 17.8.310). The formula for cases in which the 

process weight is greater than 30 tons/hour was listed as: 

 E = 55.0p0.11

The formula should read: 

 E = 55.0p0.11 – 40

The formula appears (incorrectly) on pages 76, 284 and 296. 

The formula for cases in which the process feed to the kiln is less than 30 tons per hour is listed 

correctly as: E=4.10p0.67.

 

2. NOx and SO2

 Emission Limit for Holcim – Inconsistent numbers.

The NOx and SO2 emission limits for Holcim are shown in §52.1396(c)(2) (page 296) as:

 NOx = 5.5 lb/ton clinker

A couple of other inadvertent items regarding Montana proposed visibility FIP

Hal Robbins 

to: 

Vanessa Hinkle 

03/22/2012 09:22 AM 

Hide Details 

From: Hal Robbins <hrobbins@bison-eng.com> 

To: Vanessa Hinkle/R8/USEPA/US@EPA 

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded. 

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\vhinkle\Local Settings\Temp\notes7A42A6\~web6058.htm 7/17/2012
 SO2

 = 1.3 lb/ton clinker.

These numbers are consistent with the values in the discussion of BART. The SO2 limit is 

discussed on page 93 (1.3 lb/ton) while the NOx limit is discussed on page 84 (5.5 lb/ton). 

However, the discussion found in “Proposed Action” (Section VI.B, page 285) shows different 

values. It lists NOx as 7.0 and SO2 as 0.63 lb/ton of clinker. I assume these values were 

inadvertently placed in this section. The 5.5 and 1.3 values appear, to me, to be the correct 

values. 

 

Give me a call or email if you have any questions or if I’m out in left field. 

 

 

Hal Robbins 

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

Harold W Robbins,

President

Bison Engineering Inc.

1400 11th Ave

Helena, MT 59601

 

406 442-5768

406 449-6653 - FAX

406 431-0249 - Cell

 

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\vhinkle\Local Settings\Temp\notes7A42A6\~web6058.htm 7/17/2012
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6895

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRIAN JAMES BRONSON, a/k/a Little B,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,

Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00249-D-1; 5:11-cv-00088-D)

Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 23, 2011

Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian James Bronson, Appellant Pro Se. William Ellis Boyle, 

Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian James Bronson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Bronson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### Marie SMITH, Appellant, v. MELMAX MANAGEMENT CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-688.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 14, 1971.

Ainslee R. Ferdie, Miami, for appellant.

West, Goldman & Weisberg, Miami, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 849.
November 28, 2012

This information is based upon and validated by the general knowledge of the Dow 

Building Solutions and the Polyurethanes Research and Development groups at The Dow 

Chemical Company. 

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

Dow Building Solutions employs polymeric Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (pMDI) 

which contains some Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) in various products. The 

information herein is in response to the EPA request for information on curing time and 

re-entry of a building following application of a material with MDI containing 

compounds. 

 

CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)
 

CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)
 

CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)
CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)
Further information on product use instructions, material safety data sheets, and 

general literature for Dow Building Solutions is found publicly at 

http://building.dow.com/na/en/

The information provided is presented in good faith and is based on the best of my 

knowledge, information and belief as of today. 

* Trademarks of The Dow Chemical Company

Notice: No freedom from any patent owned by Dow or others is to be inferred. Because use conditions and applicable laws may differ 

from one location to another and may change with time, Customer is responsible for determining whether products and the 

information in this document are appropriate for Customer’s use and for ensuring that Customer’s workplace and disposal practices 

are in compliance with applicable laws and other governmental enactments. Dow assumes no obligation or liability for the information 

in this document. NO WARRANTIES ARE GIVEN; ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS 

FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED

CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)
References

1 Brown, WE. (1987) The Chemistry and Biochemistry of Isocyanates: An Overview. 

Chapter 8. In: Current Topics in Pulmonary Pharmacology and Toxicology. Volume 

1. Hollinger, MA, ed. Elsevier. Cited from EPA Toxicological Review of Methylene 

diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) (CAS No. 101-68-8 and 9016-87-9) In Support of Summary 

Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) February 1998, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC

2 ASTM Standard D7487-08, 2008, “Standard Practice for Polyurethane Raw Materials: 

Polyurethane Foam Cup Test,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008, DOI:

10.1520/D7487-08, www.astm.org. 

3 Van Gheluwe, P.; Leroux, J. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1983, 28, 2053.

4 Hébrard, M.J.; Laroux, J. Analytical Instrumentation 1986, 15, 201.

5 Lovering, E.G.; Laidler, K.J. Can J. Chem. 1962, 40, 26.

CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)