alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1





November 18, 2013Analyst Contact:T.D. Eureste918-588-7167Media Contact:Brad Borror918-588-7582





ONEOK Partners to Participate in


RBC Capital Markets’ MLP Conference





TULSA, Okla . – Nov. 18, 2013 – ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will participate in the RBC Capital Markets’ MLP Conference on Thursday, Nov. 21, 2013, in Dallas, Texas.





Terry K. Spencer, ONEOK Partners president, will conduct a series of meetings with investment-community representatives at the conference.





The materials utilized at the conference will be accessible on the ONEOK Partners website, www.oneokpartners.com , on Thursday, Nov. 21, at 8 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (7 a.m. Central Standard Time).











ONEOK Partners, L.P. (pronounced ONE-OAK) (NYSE: OKS) is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, and is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers. Its general partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE), a diversified energy company, which owns approximately 41.3 percent of the overall partnership interest, as of Sept. 30, 2013. ONEOK is one of the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, serving more than 2 million customers in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas.





For more information, visit the website at http://www.oneokpartners.com/ .





For the latest news about ONEOK Partners, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKPartners .








###
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY

(Section 302)

I, John T. English, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of Florida Public Utilities Company (the registrant);

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 14, 2008



By  /s/ John T. English

John T. English

Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





(Date of report)December 5, 2013(Date of earliest event reported)December 3, 2013





ONEOK PARTNERS, L.P.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware1-1220293-1120873(State or other jurisdiction(Commission(IRS Employerof incorporation)File Number)Identification No.)





100 West Fifth Street; Tulsa, OK


(Address of principal executive offices)





74103


(Zip code)





(918) 588-7000


(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)





Not Applicable


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





[] Written communication pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





[] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





[] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





[] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))










---




Item 7.01Regulation FD DisclosureOn December 3, 2013, ONEOK, Inc. (ONEOK) announced it will participate in the 9thAnnual BMO Capital Markets Utilities and Pipelines Day in New York City on Wednesday, December 4, 2013.  ONEOK Partners, L.P.’s sole general partner, ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C., is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK.  A copy of the news release is attached as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.The materials utilized at the conference will be accessible on ONEOK’s website,www.oneok.com.The information disclosed in this Item 7.01, including Exhibit 99.1 hereto, is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.Item 9.01Financial Statements and Exhibits(d)ExhibitsExhibitNumberDescription99.1News release issued by ONEOK, Inc. dated December 3, 2013.


2


---




SIGNATURE





Pursuant to the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, hereunto duly authorized.





ONEOK Partners, L.P.By:  ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C.,General PartnerDate:December 5, 2013By:/s/ Derek S. ReinersDerek S. ReinersSenior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer





3


---




EXHIBIT INDEX








ExhibitNumberDescription99.1(d)News release issued by ONEOK, Inc. dated December 3, 2013.











4
Exhibit 23
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in:

     (i)  Registration  Statement No. 333-30438  (Employee Stock Option Plan) on
          Form S-8, and

     (ii) Registration  Statement No. 333-91491 (1995 Stock Option Plan) on Form
          S-8

of our report  dated April 12,  2001,  appearing  in this Annual  Report on Form
10-KSB of Advantage  Marketing  Systems,  Inc.  for the year ended  December 31,
2000.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
April 12, 2001
#### METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Arthur H. COURSHON et al., Respondents.

No. 39810.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 31, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 235 So.2d 535.

ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, C. J., dissents.
### OFFICE OFTHEATrORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS

**AUSTIN**



### Bear alrt 

### Attention,EiQOtidII i708t Ud3&A ., provides ES lollove~

"The Federal aratllt uqions **ergaaized** hersun~sr,,

their property, their franohlee~p, oagital, rsastisu bu~pluaes, and other fuudrr, rnd their hmm shall 

### be em@ f%mi all taxation now or hareeftor~ iiup~oaed b the Vnfted States QT by any State, Terr torlal 1 or looal taxing authorityt 8x**oept** that tiy raal property an6 any tan&ble pereonal property of euah Federal ore&it union8 shall be subjeet to Federal, State, TbrritWial., and lOsal ta%cAion to the same extent as other similar proparty is taxwl INkthing

herein oimq&m3 shall prevent .hcidb&s in.any Feibra~ twadit union organized hertitiUer

PrWbe 9 lnoluded in the valuation of the peraqna propert of tbs owncira' 'ox holders thereof in aese~8 a& taxes &a- 1 'posed by authority of the State 6~ politlaal aubdivfsian thereof in whhfah~ the Bedaral oredft union is looatedl 

### i?rovided however, That the duty or butden 01 oollsot~n~ OX' enforoihg~~the

payment of+euah tax ahall not ba i~~posed

upon my auoh Federal orsdit union snd the tax shall not ex&eed the rate of taxes imposed upon holdings in domabcio oredit unions. .A8smendea, ,Dear6, 1937, 0. 3, E 4, 51 Stat.*

K8 haoe expraseed the opinion that mortgages taken **by** nationat banks are not aubjeot to th4 tax levied 

### by the statute. Opinion Xo, 0-W74r And, in tba daaa ol' Fadaral Land Rank vsb ~rosland, Sfjl

V.3. 374, 67 L, Ed. 703; the ?aqmme Ccurt of ths Ensted Fltates held thdt the Federal land banks were not subject to a 'stnilertax levied by thy Stat3 of frlabama.Htmorabla Uherley Lookhart, Page 

### 3

Xo-o?~,etha 

## %a%-is expreeepilvate

bsneiits

bn largepartr

Y ellowed

to levy 

### aertaln

teml upon theirpropertisebSsot on 1767 

### J&&S thena nts or the UnitedStatesror theperformnoo or oertalath f&P benerlolal to the Federal cm-emmat. 

### Ssotloa

1768 exteadlr

to than osrtaln 

### axemptfons from ststetaxation. Doubtleas th6 aongrem relt that it we arfordingan exeuaptlon rrm looaltaxationin an equitableproportion to the sdnlosu e eotad from ruoh oonoems as agcnoies 

### or the UnitsdBfatear "p A# 

### n the OWY of !mtiOnal bank6and ,P&ral landbankswe think theaongress aotedwlthlaIt-8 powar in the enaotment or Seotlon1767r we am rurtherof the oplnlon

that the language

of that seotion

forbibsthe levyancl oollsotlou

of thletax ea against 

### organieatlona ionnedunder the FederalOrodlt

UnionAotr 

### negatloe. **Your question**  **is** anmered in the



### Your8very truly A'R%RlQETaEKERAL

OFTEXAB



### BY mmll i%ewl* ASh3tant

**AT ’** **T ’** **RQVRD** 

### OPImO~ aa?@.mTm By /e/ B.W.B., Chairman
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>          UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from FPL
Group's and FPL's condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2000
and condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the three
months ended
March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.

<CIK>                               0000753308
<NAME>                         FPL Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000,000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                          PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>               $7,893
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>             $3,519
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                  $1,077
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                $0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                          $872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          $13,361
<COMMON>                                $2
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>               $2,896
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                     $2,494
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>          $5,392
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   $0
<PREFERRED>                             $226
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                    $3,478
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                      $0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>               $0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>          $0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>           $0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>               $0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>             $0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                        $0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>          $4,265
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>           $13,361
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>               $1,468
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                    $57
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>              $1,231
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>              $1,231
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                 $237
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                      $7
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>          $183
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                $62
<NET-INCOME>                            $121
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             $4
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>           $121
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                $92
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>               $0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                  $480
<EPS-BASIC>                           $0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                           $0.71



</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. 97-11062 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOE HENRY CARTER, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CV-812-A

- - - - - - - - - - September 14, 1998 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, D E MOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joe Henry Carter, Jr., federal prisoner #20402-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion after remand on the issue whether Carter was denied ineffective assistance of counsel. Carter has made no relevant appellate argument on his first eight claims. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6) requires that the appellant's argument contain the reasons why he deserves the requested relief, together with citation to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.No. 97-11062 -2- 1993) (stating same as to predecessor of Rule 28(a)(6)). Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, see Haines v.
Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972), we nevertheless require arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. See Yohey , 985 F.2d at 225. Claims not adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed abandoned on the appeal. See id. at 224-25. In regard to his ninth claim, Carter has failed to demonstrate that counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate or communicate the possibility of a plea agreement. See Lockhart v. Fretwell , 506 U.S. 364, 369, 113 S. Ct. 838, 842 (1993); Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 689-94, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2065-68 (1984). The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold a hearing. See United States v. Bartholomew , 974 F.2d 39, 41-42 (5th Cir. 1992)
AFFIRMED.
Order filed, September 17, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00776

- CR NO. 14

- 13

- 00777

- CR

____________ AKILLEON LARAN CHASE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. 1338722 , 1338723



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due September 16, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. B ecause the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.We order B

. J

. Orsack , the official court reporter, to file the record in this

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
Exhibit 31(1)



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY

(Section 302)

I, John T. English, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Florida Public Utilities Company (the registrant);;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date: August 11, 2003



By  /s/ John T English

John T. English

Chief Executive Officer
#### WEJAC UTILITIES, INC., Appellant, v. John Dryden DAVENPORT, Jr., Appellee.

No. 46800.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 16, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1972.

Ford, Moore, Jones & Colmer, Pasca-goula, for appellant.

Karl Wiesenburg, Robert H. Oswald, Pascagoula, for appellee.

PATTERSON, Justice:

This is an appeal by Wejac Utilities, Inc. from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County. The judgment sustained a motion of the appellee landowner to strike the appellant’s answer to a writ of prohibition challenging the public need for land sought to be acquired by eminent domain proceedings. The landowner, appellee, contends that the eminent domain proceedings instituted by Wejac Utilities, Inc., who held a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the operation of a sewage system on adjacent land, seeks land not necessary to the public use. The basis of the motion to strike the answer of the appellant was that the Public Service Commission was the proper forum to determine whether the specified lands were being condemned for a public use. The court’s order sustaining this motion was without prejudice to the appellant to institute proceedings before the Mississippi Public Service Commission for its determination.

The issue before this Court is whether the Circuit Court of Jackson County had jurisdiction to try the question of public use on a writ of prohibition or whether that issue should be tried before the commission. It is the opinion of the Court that all issues presented by this appeal are controlled by Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2782 (1956), which states in part as follows:

Writ of prohibition.

> The legal remedy by way of prohibition is made applicable for the purposes of testing the questions (1) whether the applicant seeking to exercise the right of eminent domain is, in character, such a corporation, association, district or other legal entity as is entitled to the right, and/or (2) *whether there is a public necessity for the taking of the particular property or a part thereof which it is proposed to condemn.*. . . Upon the filing of a petition under this section the circuit judge shall issue a temporary order staying the hearing in the court of eminent domain until the cause can be *tried under this section by the Circuit Judge,*and if on the hearing last aforesaid the petition be sustained a perma*340nent writ of prohibition shall issue. (Emphasis added.)

See Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Council, 199 So.2d 247 (Miss.1967), and Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Channell, 241 Miss. 290, 130 So.2d 563 (1961), wherein the above section was construed by this Court to provide the exclusive forum for determining whether there exists public necessity for the taking of the property proposed to be condemned.

The cause is reversed and remanded to the circuit court for trial upon the issue presented by the writ of prohibition.

Reversed and remanded.

RODGERS, P. J., and JONES, INZER and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
#### Frank M. ROBERTS, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF DADE, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-1040.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 21, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
From: Dick Guldi < rlguldi@tx.rr.com >

To: Maria Martinez/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred

Thompson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/16/2012 08:08 PM

Subject: further thoughts on today's EPA meeting on cement kiln emissions

I can't help thinking about today's EPA meeting in Arlington

where Jan P ruzinski, Executive Director at Cement Council of Texas,

told us that he was concerned about mercury poisoning of the

Wilamette River Valley in Oregon from Chinese pollution while Texas

cement kilns having been polluting the Dallas

- Fort Worth metroplex

for more than thirty years. In the days of Margaret Keliher, they

even opposed offers of millions of dollars of funding to install

pollution abatement equipment. They just always want to operate with

their good old ways, treating the air as their perso nal sewer.

Jan also said that cement manufacturing employs 1500 people in

Texas. Assuming 1000 of them work near Midlothian and that the

metroplex has 1 million people with asthma (since I learned today

that we have double the asthma rate of the rest o f the country), that

works out to be 1000 metroplex residents with asthma for each cement

worker. Astounding !

Cement producers need to become good corporate citizens like

Texas Instruments and many other companies!

Dick Guldi