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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Farmers Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
March 31, 2000 and the related consolidated statements of income,
comprehensive income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the three
month period ended March 31, 2000 (unaudited) and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000


<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         264,799
<SECURITIES>                                    36,543
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               609,568
<PP&E>                                         759,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                 333,382
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,937,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          607,711
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          500,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,024,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,937,868
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               825,132
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  531,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                283,212
<INCOME-TAX>                                   111,130
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            172,082
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   172,082
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4307]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-397]
Washington Public Power Supply System; Notice of Withdrawal of 
Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License
    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Washington Public Power Supply System (the licensee) to 
withdraw its June 6, 1995, as supplemented by letter dated April 22, 
1996, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License 
No. NPF-21 for the Washington Nuclear Project No. 2, located in Benton 
County, Washington.
    The proposed change would have modified the facility Technical 
Specifications (TS) pertaining to organizational position titles, Plant 
Operations Committee composition and chairmanship, and a minor 
editorial correction. In addition, TS 6.2.1.e would have been deleted 
and 6.2.1.d modified to incorporate the quality assurance function per 
Generic Letter 88-06 dated March 22, 1988.
    The Commission had previously issued Notices of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on July 19, 
1995 (60 FR 37102) and June 28, 1996 (61 FR 33779). However, by letter 
dated January 29, 1997, the licensee withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated June 6, 1995, as supplemented by letter 
dated April 22, 1996, and the licensee's letter dated January 29, 1997, 
which withdrew the application for license amendment. The above 
documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's 
Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., 
Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the 
Richland Public Library, 955 Northgate Street, Richland, Washington 
99352.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of February 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy G. Colburn,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-4307 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
255 La. 801

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

No. 50415.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 30, 1970.

In re: Claudell Hammons applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and habeas corpus.

Writs refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
Ex 10e23 2013 10-K






Exhibit 10(e)23
AGREEMENT


This Agreement is entered into this the 2nd day of October, 2013, by and between Balch & Bingham, LLP and Thomas O. Anderson.
The MPUS and its Independent Monitors, BREI have requested to interview Thomas O. Anderson on Friday, October 4, 2013, regarding the investigation of BREI on behalf of the MPUS of the prudence of the expenditures made regarding Mississippi Power Company's certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct a project referred to as The Kemper County Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plant.
The October 4, 2013, interview will be conducted by BREI at the offices of Balch & Bingham. Balch & Bingham, on behalf of its client Mississippi Power Company, may also elect to interview Thomas O. Anderson during the term of this Agreement.
In addition, the parties anticipate that Mr. Anderson may be requested to appear in similar circumstances or to meet with Balch and Bingham and/or Mississippi Power Company during the remainder of calendar year 2013.
In consideration of Mr. Anderson's agreement to be available and to appear upon the reasonable requests of Balch and Bingham, Balch & Bingham will compensate Thomas O. Anderson for his time involved in the interviews and activities described above in the amount of $25,000.00 for the remainder of calendar year 2013. In the event Mr. Anderson's appearance is requested during calendar year 2014, the parties will negotiate mutually agreeable terms for such engagement.
This Agreement does not conflict with the obligations owed by Mr. Anderson to Mississippi Power Company under the Agreement entered with Mississippi Power Company at the time of Thomas O. Anderson's retirement.











Balch & Bingham will deliver the payments contemplated hereunder to Mr. Anderson within ten ( 10) days following the execution of this Agreement.
This Agreement will terminate at 11:59 p.m. CST on December 31, 2013, unless
extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
	
				
	 
	BALCH & BINGHAM LLP






	 

	 
	BY:
	/s/Ben H. Stone
	 

	 
	 
	BEN H. STONE
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	BY:
	/s/Thomas O. Anderson
	 

	 
	 
	THOMAS O. ANDERSON
MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 2-12-13 Telephone Call on Processed C&D Wood 

FROM: Kenneth Dixon

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110 

On February 12, 2013, EPA held a conference call with CMRA members to ask clarifying 

questions about information submitted to the agency on December 7, 2012, concerning processed 

C&D wood. CMRA submitted the information, copies of which are attached, in support of its 

request that EPA list processed C&D wood as a categorical non-waste fuel in 40 CFR 241.4(a). 

In particular, EPA asked about the processing practices used in New York. Samples from New 

York combustion facilities represent a large part of the C&D wood contaminants dataset 

submitted to EPA. CMRA members explained typical sampling protocols and QA/QC 

procedures. They could not say with any certainty, however, whether individual samples came 

from facilities that used positive sorting or negative sorting. They explained that combustion 

facilities typically burned processed C&D wood from two or three dozen suppliers at any given 

time, with some facilities using positive sorting and others using negative sorting. 

EPA also asked about the C&D wood being burned at Waste Management facilities referenced in 

the submittal. For two facilities that process C&D wood using negative sorting, CMRA provided 

the percentage of incoming materials that was mixed C&D debris and the percentage that was 

clean untreated wood. CMRA did not provide similar information for two facilities that process 

C&D wood using positive sorting. EPA inquired if this information was available, but CMRA 

indicated they could not provide a reliable estimate. 

Call Participants

Max Lee (CMRA – Koogler & Associates) 

Karl Seltzer (CMRA – Koogler & Associates) 

Andrew Szurgot (Covanta) 

Kenneth Dixon (EPA)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs


Proposed Road Maintenance Funding Distribution Methodology

ACTION: Notice; Reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This notice reopens the comment period on the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs' proposed funding distribution methodology for the road 
maintenance program. The Bureau is seeking more comments to better 
enable it to develop and implement a policy that will meet the needs of 
the tribes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Chief, Division of 
Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 
4058 MIB, Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Division of Transportation, 
Bureau of Indian Affairs at (202) 208-4359.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 19, 1996, we published a notice 
in the Federal Register at 61 FR 67058 that requested comments on a 
proposed methodology and formula for distributing the Bureau's road 
maintenance funds to tribes. The comment period for the proposal ended 
on February 3, 1997.
    Because we did not receive enough comments, we are reopening the 
comment period. We will consider the comments that we receive as we 
develop a policy for determining base funding for each tribe that is 
eligible for road maintenance funds. Interested persons may submit 
written comments regarding this proposed methodology and formula to the 
location identified in the address section of this notice.

    Dated: February 18, 1997.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 97-4690 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
FILED 

Bowen Greenwood 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE1

2023 MT 224, DA 22-0064: MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 

CENTER AND SIERRA CLUB, Appellees, v. WESTMORELAND ROSEBUD 

MINING, LLC, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 

and MONTANA BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, Appellants.

In a unanimous Opinion, the Montana Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that 

vacated the State permit that allowed the expansion of the Rosebud coal mine in Colstrip, 

Montana.

In 2015, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a permit for 

additional mining to Westmoreland Rosebud Mining. Several conservation groups 

challenged the permit, arguing it was issued in violation of the legal requirements of the 

Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act.

A district court in eastern Montana agreed and vacated the permit, halting mining activities 

in the expanded area. However, the Montana Supreme Court temporarily reinstated the 

permit pending resolution of the legal issue. State law is based on federal requirements for 

regulating strip mines.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Environmental Review (the Board) made 

several errors when it upheld DEQ’s finding that Westmoreland had demonstrated that the 

proposed mining activity is designed to prevent material damage to the hydrological 

balance in the area.

During the permitting process, Westmoreland acknowledged a projected 13% increase in 

salinity in the alluvium of East Fork Armell’s Creek from the proposed mining activities. 

Although the additional salts in the alluvium would not be a statistically significant 

concentration, they would increase the length of time during which higher pollutant levels 

would be present. The Court held that the Board did not adequately analyze whether 

extending the duration of an existing water quality violation satisfied the legal 

requirements. Further, the Court ruled that the Board failed to properly consider the 

cumulative impacts of increased mining activity on the area water quality. 

The ruling halts mining expansion into Area B of the Rosebud Mine and sends the 

permitting process back to the Board for additional review.

1 This synopsis has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It constitutes no part of the 

Opinion of the Court and may not be cited as precedent.

11/22/2023
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4898]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated October 21, 1996, and published in the Federal 
Register on November 14, 1996, (61 FR 58423), Cambridge Isotope Lab, 50 
Frontage Road, Andover, Massachusetts 01810, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances 
listed below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphetamine (1100)..........................  II                        
Methamphetamine (1105)......................  II                        
Pentobarbital (2270)........................  II                        
Secobarbital (2315).........................  II                        
Phencyclidine (7471)........................  II                        
Phenylacetone (8501)........................  II                        
Cocaine (9041)..............................  II                        
Codeine (9050)..............................  II                        
Oxycodone (9143)............................  II                        
Benzoylecgonine (9180)......................  II                        
Methadone (9250)............................  II                        
Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms)   II                        
 (9273).                                                                
Morphine (9300).............................  II                        
Fentanyl (9801).............................  II                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. Sec. 823(a) and 
determined that the registration of Cambridge Isotope Lab to 
manufacture the listed controlled substances is consistent with the 
public interest at this time. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 823 
and 28 C.F.R. Secs. 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the 
application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above 
is granted.

    Dated: February 6, 1997.
Gene R. Haislip,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-4898 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
EXHIBIT 21

             ARTESIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

                           Subsidiaries of Registrant

The following list includes the Registrant and all of its subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2004. The voting equity interests of each company shown is owned,
to the extent indicated by the percentage, by the company immediately above,
which is not indented to the same degree. All subsidiaries of the Registrant
appearing in the following table are included in the consolidated financial
statements of the Registrant and its subsidiaries.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Percentage of Voting
          Name of Company                  State of Incorporation    Equity Interests Owned
---------------------------------------    ----------------------    ----------------------
<S>                                                  <C>                     <C>
Artesian Resources Corporation                       Delaware
   Artesian Water Company, Inc.                      Delaware                100
   Artesian Water Pennsylvania, Inc.                 Pennsylvania            100
   Artesian Development Corporation                  Delaware                100
   Artesian Wastewater Management, Inc.              Delaware                100
   Artesian Utility Development, Inc.                Delaware                100
     AquaStructure Delaware, L.L.C.                  Delaware                33 1/3
</TABLE>

                         ARTESIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION
                 SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Balance at   Charged to     Charged                 Balance at
                                           Beginning    Costs and    to Other                   End of
              Additions                    Of Period     Expenses    Accounts    Deductions     Period
---------------------------------------   ----------   ----------    --------    ----------   ----------
<S>                                       <C>          <C>           <C>         <C>          <C>
Classification
For the Year Ended December 31, 2004
   Valuation allowance for deferred tax
   assets                                 $  512,000                             $   30,000   $  482,000
For the Year Ended December 31, 2003
   Valuation allowance for deferred tax
   assets                                 $  506,000                 $  6,000                 $  512,000
For the Year Ended December 31, 2002
   Valuation allowance for deferred tax
   assets                                 $  590,000                             $   84,000   $  506,000
</TABLE>
#### Gail Claire GANN v. STATE.

No. 38182.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Appeal dismissed without opinion. 219 So.2d 130.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7534 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to direct the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services to conduct a study on potential disparities 

in incurred costs for rural and urban hospitals under the inpatient 

prospective payment system and to authorize appropriate payment adjustments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2020 

Mr. KELLER (for himself, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. HAGEDORN, Mr. 

CRAWFORD, and Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to direct 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct 

a study on potential disparities in incurred costs for 

rural and urban hospitals under the inpatient prospective 

payment system and to authorize appropriate payment 

adjustments. 

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 ‘‘Reviewing Urban and 

5 Rural Adjustments to Level Hospital Expenses and LopVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:34 Jul 28, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7534.IH H7534

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7534 IH

1 sided Payments Act of 2020’’ or the ‘‘RURAL HELP Act 

2 of 2020’’. 

3 SEC. 2. STUDY ON INCURRED COSTS DISPARITIES UNDER 

4 IPPS; AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT ADJUST5 MENTS. 

6 Section 1886(d)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 

7 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)) is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following new subparagraph: 

9 ‘‘(N)(i) Not later than 2 years after the date of the 

10 enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall con11 duct a study to determine if, under the methodology for 

12 determining payments under paragraph (1)(A), and using 

13 both national and hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios, 

14 costs incurred by hospitals located in rural areas by diag15 nosis-related group exceed those costs incurred by hos16 pitals located in urban areas. 

17 ‘‘(ii) Insofar as the Secretary determines through the 

18 study conducted under clause (i) that costs incurred by 

19 hospitals located in rural areas exceed those costs incurred 

20 by hospitals located in urban areas, the Secretary shall 

21 provide for an appropriate adjustment to payments under 

22 paragraph (1)(A) to reflect those higher costs for dis23 charges occurring on or after October 1 of a year specified 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7534 IH

1 by the Secretary (but in no case later than 2 years after 

2 the date of the enactment of this subparagraph).’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS