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

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrants form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1998.       
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       14,229
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             14,229
<PP&E>                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               14,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         4,000
<BONDS>                                           0                        
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  4,964,421
<OTHER-SE>                                   10,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 14,229
<SALES>                                       1,403
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,403
<CGS>                                         1,275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              9,500  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (9,372)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (9,372)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
                           

</TABLE>
#### Edmond Robert DREUSIKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-583.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 16, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; James M. Reasbeck, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5                                      
<MULTIPLIER>              1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997                               
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                                 0
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    211,017
<ALLOWANCES>                                       4,749
<INVENTORY>                                       27,409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 235,797
<PP&E>                                         3,516,430
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,950,794
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,858,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            332,294
<BONDS>                                          454,891
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          16,250
<OTHER-SE>                                       813,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,858,792
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 634,645
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    357,055
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                21,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  171,351
<INCOME-TAX>                                      65,649
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              105,702
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     105,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.00
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                LOCK-UP AGREEMENT



                                  June 27, 2001

Renaissance US Growth & Income Trust PLC
BFSUS Special Opportunities Trust PLC
c/o Renaissance Capital Group, Inc.
8080 North Central Expressway, Suite 210-LB-59
Dallas, Texas 75206

         Re:   Digital Recorders, Inc.

Gentlemen:

         The undersigned executive officer, director or principal shareholder of
Digital Recorders, Inc., a North Carolina corporation (the "Company"), owns
shares of common stock, $.10 per share ("Common Stock"), of the Company and
understands that you propose to enter into a Convertible Loan Agreement, dated
as of June 27, 2001 (the "Loan Agreement"), with the Company providing for a
convertible loan to the Company in the aggregate principal amount of $3,000,000
(the "Loan"). In consideration for your execution of the Loan Agreement, your
providing the Loan and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of
which are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned agrees with you that for a period
beginning on the date of the Loan Agreement and continuing to and including the
date twelve (12) months after the date of the Loan Agreement (the "Lock-Up
Period"), the undersigned will not, directly or indirectly, offer, sell,
contract to sell, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of any shares of Common
Stock beneficially owned or controlled by the undersigned (including
subsequently acquired shares or securities convertible or exercisable into
shares), without your prior written consent, except for transfers to family
members, family partnerships and trusts for the benefit of family members or for
estate planning purposes, provided that prior to any such transfer, any such
transferee shall have executed and delivered to you a lock-up agreement
substantially in the form of this Agreement for the remaining period covered
hereby. The undersigned agrees and consents to the entry of stop transfer
instructions with the Company's transfer agent against any transfer of shares of
Common Stock owned by the undersigned not in compliance with this Lock-Up
Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary above, the undersigned may
sell shares of Common Stock during the Lock-Up Period, so long as such sales are
made at prices above $5.00 per share.


                                       Very truly yours,



                                       Name:
                                             -----------------------------------
                                       Title:
                                              ----------------------------------
# jetBlue.

27-01 Queens Plaza North Long Island City. NY 11101 jetblue.com July 23, 2013

Brooke Chapman Associate Director Small Community Air Service Development Office of Aviation Analysis U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Room W86-307 202-366-0577
Dear Ms. Chapman: . .# .... t'" 

# 'l,',).'r'TI'I.:NT OC

_, ,~~ ,l. I 

## ::sSPORTATION 

# :::UOPERi,TIOi,S ZCIJSCP Ib ;.:> 

## 12:58

Onbehalf ofthe 15,000 Crewmembers ofJetBlue Airways, Iam writing to express JetBlue's interest in adding air service to Savannah (SAV) from Boston (BOS). JetBlue is currently considering non-stop service to Savannah from Boston's Logan airport, with the potential to begin service as early as Spring of 2014. Additionally, JetBlue is interested inestablishing direct service to Savannah from New York City's John F. Kennedy airport aswell. Iamconfident that the market dynamics ofSavannah will fit well with JetBJue's high quality, low fare air service and will drive significant increases intravel to Georgia's Southeast coast. Inrecent years, JetBlue has been able to enter markets and reduce fares while simultaneously increasing demand. After letBlue established service from New York City (JFK) toJacksonville FL (lAX) inJune 2006, average fares dropped by 22% while daily passenger demand rose 43%. More recently, JetBlue has been very satisfied with the new direct service to Charleston, SC (CHS), which began inFebruary 2013. Ithas already experienced the "JetBlue effect" oflowering fares while increasing demand. Our analysis indicates that Savannah holds similar new-market potential asJacksonville and Charleston. Ibelieve JetBlue can lower fares and increase demand on Savannah routes to Boston and New York, and Iask for your support in communicating JetBlue's interest inSavannah to your Board. Igreatly appreciate your attention tothis important subject. Thank you for your assistance and consideration. Respectfull y,

Scott Laurence Vice President Network Planning &Partnerships \j
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 734

AMENDMENT
In the Senate of the United States,

August 19 (legislative day, August 18), 1994.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 734) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Act entitled

‘An Act to provide for the extension of certain Federal benefits, services, and assistance to the Pascua Yaqui Indians of

Arizona, and for other purposes’ ’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

Page 3, after line 2, insert:

1 SEC. 2. STUDY.

2 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the extension

3 of certain Federal benefits, services, and assistance to the

4 Pascua Yaqui Indians of Arizona, and for other purposes’’

5 (25 U.S.C. 1300f et seq.) is amended by adding at the end

6 the following new section:

7 ‘‘SEC. 4. STUDY.

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior shall

9 conduct one or more studies to determine—
2

HR 734 EAS

1 ‘‘(1) whether the lands held in trust on the date

2 of enactment of this section by the United States for

3 the Pascua Yaqui Tribe are adequate for the needs of

4 the tribe for the foreseeable future;

5 ‘‘(2) if such lands are not adequate—

6 ‘‘(A) whether suitable additional lands are

7 available for acquisition by exchange or pur8 chase; and

9 ‘‘(B) the cost and location of the suitable

10 additional lands;

11 ‘‘(3) whether the Pascua Yaqui Tribe has suffi12 cient water rights and allocations to meet the needs

13 of the tribe for the foreseeable future;

14 ‘‘(4) if such water rights and allocations are not

15 adequate—

16 ‘‘(A) whether additional water can be ac17 quired; and

18 ‘‘(B) the potential sources and associated

19 costs of such additional water;

20 ‘‘(5) whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs and

21 the Indian Health Service have limited funding to the

22 Pascua Yaqui Tribe based on a determination of the

23 tribal enrollment in 1978, rather than the current en24 rollment;
3

HR 734 EAS

1 ‘‘(6) if funding has been based on 1978 enroll2 ment, how the funding levels can be adjusted to ensure

3 that the Pascua Yaqui Tribe receives a fair and equi4 table portion of Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian

5 Health Service funding;

6 ‘‘(7) the genealogy of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe;

7 and

8 ‘‘(8) the economic development opportunities

9 available to the tribe as a result of the North Amer10 ican Free Trade Agreement.

11 ‘‘(b) TRIBAL PARTICIPATION.—The Secretary shall

12 provide for the participation of members of the Pascua

13 Yaqui tribe to carry out subsection (a).

14 ‘‘(c) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date

15 on which funds are made available to carry out this section,

16 the Secretary of the Interior shall submit a report to Con17 gress that contains the results of each study conducted pur18 suant to subsection (a).

19 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

20 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec21 essary to carry out this section.’’.

Attest:

Secretary.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes 
and appoints Arup Sen the true and lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power 
of substitution and resubstitution, for him or her and in his or her name, 
place and stead, to sign on his or her behalf, as a director or officer, or 
both, as the case may be, of Electropharmacology, Inc., a Delaware 
corporation (the "Corporation"), an Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year 
ended December 31, 1997 and to sign any or all amendments thereto, and to 
file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection 
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said 
attorney-in-fact full power and authority to do and perform each and every 
act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, 
as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, 
hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact or his 
substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue 
hereof.

Dated: April 11, 1997


/s/ David Saloff
-------------------------------------
David Saloff


/s/ Murray Feldman
-------------------------------------
Murray Feldman


/s/ Steven Mayer
-------------------------------------
Steven Mayer


/s/ Larry Haimovitch
-------------------------------------
Larry Haimovitch
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 10/26/2014

FROM: Laura Farris/EPA Region 8

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Xcel Energy Meeting on 11/25/2014

SUMMARY: 

Shaun McGrath participated in a one-on-one meeting with Xcel Energy to discuss their comments on the 

Clean Power Plan, as well as the NODA and the rate-to-mass TSD, on November 25, 2014, in Denver, 

Colorado. The Clean Power Plan was proposed on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES:

EPA Region 8

Shaun McGrath, EPA Region 8 Regional Administrator

External Stakeholders

Jack Ihle, Director, Environmental Policy, Xcel Energy 

From: "Ihle, Jack" <Jack.Ihle@xcelenergy.com>

Date: November 26, 2014 at 3:21:57 PM MST

To: "McGrath, Shaun" <McGrath.Shaun@epa.gov>

Cc: "Prager, Frank P" <Frank.Prager@XCELENERGY.COM>, "Palmer, Roy" <roy.palmer@xcelenergy.com>

Subject: Thank you

Administrator McGrath,

Thanks for your time yesterday. We’ve just finished our comments and submitted them. Over the last day, we took a 

good hard look at our responses to the NODA and the rate-to-mass TSD, and have incorporated our best current 

thinking there. While it is difficult to judge some of the proposed concepts in those documents without more 

specifics, such as the impacts of the suggested alternatives on our states, we have attempted to provide our feedback 

in a way that is useful to EPA. One theme that emerged more strongly in the last stages of our writing, and that I 

mentioned to you yesterday, is that we think it is important for EPA to consider and not increase the disparity of 

state targets in any new target-setting methods (e.g. “holistic” gas, regional renewable potential approaches) it 

chooses.

I look forward to talking more as the process to develop greenhouse regulations continues.

Best,

Jack Ihle

Xcel Energy | Responsible By Nature

Director, Environmental Policy

1800 Larimer Street, 13th Floor Denver, CO 80202

P: 303.294.2262 C: 720-939-1272 F: 303.308.7691

E: jack.ihle@xcelenergy.com

________________________________________________

XCELENERGY.COM
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
on Form 10-Q of Massey Energy Company (the “Company”) for the quarter ending
March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric B. Tolbert, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)           the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)           the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Eric B.
      TolbertEric
      B. TolbertVice
      President and Chief Financial OfficerMay
      9, 2008
**Exhibit 31.2**
I, Ben Harper, Senior Vice President-Finance andSecretary/Treasurer of Friedman Industries, Incorporated, aTexas corporation, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Friedman Industries, Incorporated;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

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

          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

          b) [intentionally omitted per SEC release 33-8238]

          c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

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

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant's board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

          a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: August 12, 2005 /s/  BEN HARPER Senior Vice President-Finance and Secretary/Treasurer
#### Eskar L. POCHE v. Vivian Louise JENKINS Poche (Hutchinson).

No. 60670.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1977.

In re: Eskar L. Poche applying for Supervisory Remedial Writs.

*883Writ granted. The stay order previously issued herein is continued in effect until relator’s appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeal is finally disposed of. It is further ordered that the Court of Appeal expedite the hearing of the appeal.

DIXON, J.,

dissents from issuance of stay order, for the reason that no showing has been made that the Court of Appeal was in error in holding that applicant’s remedy is by appeal.

CALOGERO, J., dissents from issuance of the stay order.
#### DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Volusia County, Appellants, v. James E. CAMP et al., Appellees.

No. Q-439.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 23, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 20, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Elliott R. Fisk, as Executo*r*of Anna M. Filkins, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Monroe County,

December 19, 1952.

*455
      *Elliott B. Fish,*as executor, petitioner in person.

Wither, S.

Petitioner asks the court to construe paragraph *“*Second ” of testatrix’ will which reads as follows: “ I givé, devise and bequeath to Lottie E. Filkins, widow of my deceased brother Clarence G. Filkins, whatever automobile I may own at the time of my decease and my residence where I now reside, including all of the land and outbuildings as well as all furniture, household furnishings and housekeeping appliances in the house, and I direct that she shall have the right to use and occupy said premises immediately upon my death. This bequest and devise, however, are made expressly contingent upon the said Lottie E. Filkins furnishing proper care for any and all pets which I may own at the time of my decease for as long as they shall live.”

The first sentence of said paragraph contains a positive, absolute bequest and devise. The provisions of the last sentence were meant by testatrix to be performed by the beneficiary, Lottie E. Filkins, during her enjoyment of her bequest and devise. Hence the provision is not a condition precedent but is a condition subsequent. *(Matter of Johnston,*277 App. Div. 239, affd. 302 N. Y. 782; *Matter of Arrowsmith,*162 App. Div. 623, 626, affd. 213 N. Y. 704; *Matter of Baechler,*121 Misc. 691, 699, affd. 215 App. Div. 797; *Matter of Lawless,*194 Misc. 844, 862.)

The vested interests of Lottie E. Filkins in said bequest and devise continued, subject to divestment only upon the occurrence or enforcement of a legal invalidating condition. *(Matter of Dettmer,*177 Misc. 349, 354.) Although no one has as yet .. endeavored to enforce the provision as a condition subsequent, the court is asked to determine the validity thereof to clarify the status of the title to the real estate. The Attorney-General makes no claim concerning the condition.

Since the condition is based upon the lives of several animals, it clearly is void under the statute against unlawful suspension of the power of alienation. *(Booth*v. *Baptist Church,*126 N. Y.*456215; *Matter of Herts,*165 Misc. 738, 744; *Matter of Howells,*145 Misc. 557 [pets].) Moreover, there is no gift over in the event of failure to perforin the condition, and hence the condition cannot operate to disturb the vested interests of Lottie E. Filkins. *(Matter of Johnston,*277 App. Div. 239, 243, affd. 302 N. Y. 782, *supra; Sherman*v. *Richmond Hose Co.,*230 N. Y. 462, 469-470.)

Submit decree accordingly.
Second Addendum to Operating Agreement


*    The  addendum  consists  of a schedule  of pricing  terms to the  Operating
     Agreement. The schedule constitutes confidential information which has been
     omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
256 La. 842

#### Joseph N. SIMON, Jr. v. Mrs. Hazel L. TRAHAN.

No. 50730.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1970.

In re: Joseph N. Simon, Jr. applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 235 So.2d 610.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.