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


<ARTICLE>                                                 5
<CIK>                                            0000863437
<NAME>                                   HECTOR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                              1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS


<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                           27,055,772
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4,854,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                         616,985
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 32,982,158
<PP&E>                                           84,620,435
<DEPRECIATION>                                   33,210,402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  166,796,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            14,246,252
<BONDS>                                          86,281,656
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                         229,300
<COMMON>                                             35,747
<OTHER-SE>                                       39,716,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    166,796,687
<SALES>                                          34,117,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 34,117,316
<CGS>                                            23,063,080
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    23,063,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (13,983,623)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6,582,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  18,455,323
<INCOME-TAX>                                      7,513,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              10,942,323
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7,479,181
<EPS-BASIC>                                            2.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          1.96


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

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

No. 01-40790 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN MANUEL CASAS-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-01-CR-155-1

-------------------- February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent appellant Juan Manuel Casas-Garza (Casas) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Casas has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
EXHIBIT
32.2








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 1st Source Corporation (1st Source) on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry E. Lentych,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:








(1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and 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 1st Source.











By:








/s/LARRY E.
LENTYCH


Larry E.
Lentych


Chief
Financial Officer


October
22, 2009
**Exhibit 23**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 33-94546, 333-07195, 33-94544, 333-07199, 333-52589, 333-62781, 333-52593, 333-77883, 333-87882 and 333-87880) pertaining to the Sypris Solutions, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Key Employeesand the Sypris Solutions, Inc. Independent Directors’ Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-114982) pertaining to the Sypris Solutions, Inc. 2004 Equity Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8No. 333-166951) pertaining to the Sypris Solutions, Inc. 2010 Sypris Omnibus Plan, of our reports dated March 15, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Sypris Solutions, Inc., and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Sypris Solutions, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Louisville, Kentucky 

March 15, 2011
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7724** 

JEROME BRANCH , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. MS. BADGETT, Head Nurse; MS. WHITE, RNC

- A Nurse; EDWARD BOAKYE , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. Senior District Judge. ( 2:11

- cv - 00124

- HCM

- FBS )

Submitted : December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jerome Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jerome Branch appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reason s stated by the district
court. Branch v. Badgett , No. 2:11

- cv - 00124

- HCM

- FBS (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2012) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Electronic Docket Index for

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0542]

Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; 

Feather River Air Quality Management District; 

Stationary Source Permits

August 2015

Section A – EPA Rulemaking Documents

Document 

Number Document Name Date

A.1 Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Revisions 

to California State Implementation Plan; Feather River Air 

Quality Management District: Stationary Source Permits. Rule 

10.1 – NSR

[PUBLICATION 

DATE OF 

RULEMAKING]

A.2 Federal Register Notice of Direct Final Rulemaking for

Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Feather 

River Air Quality Management District: Stationary Source 

Permits. Rule 10.1 – NSR

[PUBLICATION 

DATE OF 

RULEMAKING]

Section B – State Implementation Plan Revision Submittals

Document 

Number Document Name Date

B.1 SIP submittal letter from CARB 11/06/2014

B.2 Feather River AQMD Rule 10.1 – New Source Review Adopted 

10/06/2014

B.3 FRAQMD, Staff Report, Rule 10.1 – New Source Review 08/22/2014

B.4 EPA Completeness Letter 12/18/2014

Section C – Referenced Federal Register Notices

Document 

Number Document Name Date

C.1 78 FR 58460; Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plan; 

California; Placer County Air Pollution Control District and 

Feather River Air Quality Management District; Stationary 

Source Permits

09/24/2013

C.2 79 FR 72981; Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for 

PM2.5; Yuba City-Marysville; California

12/09/2014
#### Adam LEWIS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 71-242.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 16, 1971.

Ordered that petitioner’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed March 24, 1971, is hereby denied. See Shedrick v. State, Fla.App., 235 So.2d 57.

Habeas corpus denied.
ORIGINAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
 

)


In the Matter of
 ) 

) 

UNIVERSAL COMPUTERS and ) ELECTRONICS, INC., ) 

d//a Appliancebestbuys.com, and ) DOCKET NO. 9347

d//a universallcdtv.com,
 )
 

Respondent.
 ) 

) 

) 

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.21 (b), which requires a scheduling conference 

within ten days after the Answer is fied, the initial scheduling conference wil be held on 

May 5, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 532, Federal Trade Commission Building, 600 

Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 

The paries are directed to meet before the scheduling conference and to comply 

with Commission Rule 3.21(a) and (b). The expected scheduling order wil be provided 

to the paries in advance of the scheduling conference. 

ORDERED: ))1Y~ 4 D. Michael Cha=­

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: April 
 29, 2011
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 2 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 of CardioGenesis Corporation (formerly known
as Eclipse Surgical Technologies, Inc.) of our report dated January 26, 2001,
except for Note 18, as to which the date is April 16, 2001, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this
Amendment No. 3 to Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
July 13, 2001





















                                       68
No. 10353.

#### Mateer *v.*The Ohio Central Traction Co.

Decided May 26, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Richland county.

*Messrs. Brucker & Cummins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Dan Babst*and *Messrs. Cummings, McBride & Wolfe,*for defendant in error.

Judgment vacated on authority of *The Cincinnati Traction Co.*v. *Durack, Admx.,*78 Ohio St., 243. Cause remanded to the circuit court with directions to consider all the evidence.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

July 21, 2006 

Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

Post Office Box 28 15 

Sacramento, CA 958 12 

Dear Ms. Witherspoon: 

On June 16,2006, CARB submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). We have reviewed materials submitted with the following rules and found that they fulfill 

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 5 1, Appendix V. 

b 

Rule Title 

Exemptions 

Rule # 

Great Basin Unified 

Imperial County General Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate 

Matter 

Imperial County 

Imperial County 

Imperial County 

Construction and Earth Moving Activities 

Bulk Materials 

Carry-Out and Track-Out 

Imperial County Open Areas 

Imperial County 

Imperial County 

Paved and Unpaved Roads 

Conservation Management Practices 

NOx fiom Boilers, Process Heaters, and Steam 

Generators 

Sacramento 

South Coast 

South Coast 

South Coast 

Definition of Terms 

Permit to Construct 

Permit Conditions in Federally Issued Permits to 

Construct 

South Coast Temporary Permit to Operate 

South Coast 

South Coast 

Permit to Operate 

Equipment Not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to 

Regulation I1 

South Coast Further Reductions of VOC Emissions From Storage 

Tanks at Petroleum Facilities 

Ventura County 

Ventura County 

Definitions for Regulation I1 

New Source Review - General 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
Ventura 

County 

Ventura County 

Ventura County 

Ventura County 

Ventura County 1 29 1 Conditions on Permits 

Ventura County 

Ventura County 

Ventura County 

This addresses all revisions in this submittal except San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD 

Rule 4694, Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks and Ventura County APCD Rule 1 12, 

Contents of Petitions. In the coming months we will review the complete revisions for action 

pursuant to Clean Air Act section 1 1 O(k). 

26 

26.1 

26.2 

26.3 

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia G. Allen at 

(415) 947-4120. 

New Source Review - General 

New Source Review - Definitions 

New Source Review - Requirements 

New Source Review - Exemptions 

26.4 

26.5 

26.6 

Since ly, 1 

New Source Review - Emission Banking 

New Source Review - Essential Public Service Bank 

New Source Review - Calculations 

cc: Mr. Ted Schade, APCO 

Great Basin APCD 

Mr. Stephen Birdsall, APCO 

Imperial County APCD 

Mr. Larry Green 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 

Mr. Seyed Sadredin, APCO 

San Joaquin Valley APCD 

Dr. Barry Wallerstein 

Executive Officer 

South Coast AQMD 

Mr. Michael J. Villegas, APCO 

Ventura County APCD 
Mr. Jorge L. Fernandez, Chief 

Program Evaluation Branch, CARB
#### James C. COLROSS, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1845.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 22, 1977.

*1144Aronovitz & Weksler and Bernard B. Weksler, Miami, for appellant.

Stuart L. Simon, County Atty. and Robert A. Ginsburg, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by a landowner from an order of the circuit court denying a petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition was sought to review a resolution of the Dade County Board of County Commissioners denying, without prejudice, appellant’s request for a zoning change.

Our review of the record on appeal reveals that the circuit court had before it competent, substantial evidence to support its judgment that the enactment of the contested resolution was fairly debatable, and that the petitioner did not sustain his burden of proving the contrary. The order of the circuit court accords with the essential requirements of the law. Therefore, we affirm the judgment below. *City of Miami Beach v. Lachman,*71 So.2d 148 (Fla.1953); *City of Miami Beach v. Wiesen,*86 So.2d 442 (Fla.1956); *De Groot v. Sheffield,*95 So.2d 912 (Fla.1957).

Affirmed.
# Službeni list C 251E/2013

| | ISSN 1977-1088
  doi:10.3000/19771088.CE2013.251.hrv |
| --- | --- |
| Službeni list
  Europske unije | C 251E |
| | |
| Hrvatsko izdanje | Informacije i objave | 5631. kolovoza 2013. |

ISSN 1977-1088

doi:10.3000/19771088.CE2013.251.hrv

Službeni list

Europske unije

C 251E

Hrvatsko izdanje

Informacije i objave

5631. kolovoza 2013.

---

| Obavijest br. | Sadržaj | Stranica |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | |
| | REZOLUCIJE |
| | Europski parlament |
| 2013/C 251E/01 | Obavijest za čitatelje | 1 |

Obavijest br.

Sadržaj

Stranica

REZOLUCIJE

Europski parlament

2013/C 251E/01

Obavijest za čitatelje

1

| HR | |
| --- | --- |

HR

---

REZOLUCIJE

Europski parlament

| 31.8.2013 | HR | Službeni list Europske unije | CE 251/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

HR

Službeni list Europske unije

CE 251/1

---

OBAVIJEST ZA ČITATELJE

Rezolucije Europskog parlamenta objavljene u drugim jezičnim verzijama u ovom izdanju Službenog lista usvojene su prije pristupanja Hrvatske Europskoj uniji te stoga nisu prevedene na hrvatski.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 12

                         Delmarva Power & Light Company

                       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                       ----------------------------------
                             (Dollars in Thousands)
                             ----------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                               12 Months
                                Ended                        Year  Ended  December  31,
                             September 30,    ---------------------------------------------------------
                                 1996            1995        1994        1993        1992        1991
                             -------------    ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
<S>                          <C>              <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Net income (1)                    $114,426     $117,488    $108,310    $111,076     $98,526     $80,506
                             -------------    ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------

Income taxes (1)                    74,882       75,540      67,613      67,102      54,834      43,249
                             -------------    ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------

Fixed charges:
  Interest on long-term
   debt                             69,130       65,572      61,128      62,651      66,976      68,133
  Other interest                    11,950       10,353       9,336       9,245       8,449      10,192
                             -------------    ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
   Total fixed charges              81,080       75,925      70,464      71,896      75,425      78,325
                             -------------    ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------

Nonutility capitalized
  interest                            (309)        (304)       (256)       (246)       (231)       (143)
                             -------------    ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------

Earnings before income
  taxes and fixed
  charges                         $270,079     $268,649    $246,131    $249,828    $228,554    $201,937
                             =============    =========   =========   =========   =========   =========

Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges                       3.33         3.54        3.49        3.47        3.03        2.58
</TABLE>

For purposes of computing the ratio, earnings are net income plus income taxes
and fixed charges, less nonutility capitalized interest.  Fixed charges consist
of interest on long-and short-term debt, amortization of debt discount,
premium, and expense, plus the interest factor associated with the Company's
major leases, and one-third of the remaining annual rentals.

(1)   Net income and income taxes related to the cumulative effect of a change
      in accounting for unbilled revenues recorded in 1991 are excluded from
      the computation of this ratio.

                                      -26-
EX-10.18



 Exhibit 10.18 

March 6, 2014 
 LHC Group, Inc. 

Lafayette, Louisiana 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of LHC Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2013, and have reported thereon under date of March 6, 2014. The aforementioned consolidated financial
statements and our audit report thereon are included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. As stated in note 1 to those financial statements, the Company changed its annual goodwill and intangible
assets impairment testing date from September 30 to November 30 and states that the accounting change is preferable in the circumstances because the change allows the Company to use a more current, complete, comprehensive, and thorough set of budget
and financial plan information for each reporting unit, which in turn would enhance the depth, strength, and quality of the Company’s determination of the reporting unit fair values, which are the basis for performing the annual impairment
analysis. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and planning upon which the decision to make this change in the method of accounting was based. 

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable
method of accounting over another acceptable method. However, for purposes of the Company’s compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter. 

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management’s business judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting
is preferable in the Company’s circumstances. 
 Very truly yours, 

/s/ KPMG LLP
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 129126(26) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, HOUSEHOLD BANK (NEVADA), N A, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129126 COA: 259650 Alcona CC: 04-000274-AV 81 st DC: 03-000201-GC RODNEY T. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of January 30, 2006 is considered , and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0424 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2006

Clerk
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

Directorate Identifier: 201 1

- NM

- 0 56

- AD

**Costs:** Labor per airplane ( 91 work hours x $8 5 /hour) $ up to 33,660 Parts per airplane $ + up to 426 Cost per airplane $ up to 34,086 Number of U.S.

- registered airplanes x 0 Total fleet cost $ 0

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibilit y Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirement s for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                             ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
O'Charley's Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-69934, No. 33-39869, No. 33-39872, No. 33-51258, No. 33-51316, and No.
33-51338 on Form S-8) of O'Charley's Inc. of our report dated February 6, 1997,
relating to the balance sheets of O'Charley's Inc. as of December 29, 1996 and
December 31, 1995, and the related statements of operations, shareholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 29, 1996, which report appears in the December 29, 1996 annual report
on Form 10-K of O'Charley's Inc.



                                             KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
March 28, 1997