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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998
<CASH>                                         367
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  211,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,461
<INVENTORY>                                    24,605
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               242,141
<PP&E>                                         3,758,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,105,935
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,971,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          523,828
<BONDS>                                        340,435
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       16,250
<OTHER-SE>                                     823,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,971,341
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               644,034
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  324,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             22,390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                171,222
<INCOME-TAX>                                   65,830
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            105,392
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,437)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   100,955
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00
        



</TABLE>
Verizon Florida Inc.



EXHIBIT 12





COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|(Dollars in Millions)                                                                            |  | Six Months EndedJune 30, 2003
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|                                                                                                
|Income before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle |  | $141.8                       
|Interest expense                                                                                 |  | 49.4                         
|Portion of rent expense representing interest                                                    |  | 15.0                         
|Amortization of capitalized interest                                                             |  | .3                           
|                                                                                                 |  |                              
|Earnings, as adjusted                                                                            |  | $206.5                       
|                                                                                                 |  |                              
|                                                                                                 | 
|Fixed charges:                                                                                   |  |                              
|Interest expense                                                                                 |  | $  49.4                      
|Portion of rent expense representing interest                                                    |  | 15.0                         
|Capitalized interest                                                                             |  | .3                           
|                                                                                                 |  |                              
|Fixed charges                                                                                    |  | $  64.7                      
|                                                                                                 |  |                              
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                               |  | 3.19                         
|                                                                                                 |  |
#### Richard SEIDEL, Appellant, v. Dr. Gordon E. HILL, Appellee.

No. 71-302.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 29, 1972.

*82L. P. Evans, Jr., and Dan G. Wheeler, Jr., of Wheeler & Evans, Miami, for appellant,

Thomas B. Mimms, Jr., of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Dr. Hill, in a libel action. We have reviewed the record and considered the able arguments and authorities submitted by counsel. We judicially conclude that the writing attributed to Dr. Hill was made and published, in fact and law, as a part or participation in quasi-judicial proceedings involved with Florida Workmen’s Compensation Law, Ch. 440, F.S.1969, F.S.A. As such, it was absolutely privileged and thus not actionable. We affirm upon authority of Robertson v. Industrial Insurance Company, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 198; McNayr v. Kelly, Fla.1966, 184 So.2d 428; Hauser v. Urchisin, Fla.1970, 231 So.2d 6; Bencomo v. Morgan, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 236; Jones v. Life Insurance Company of Florida, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 889.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.

MAGÉR, J., concurs specially.

MAGER, Judge

(concurring specially) :

In my opinion the record does not reflect sufficient facts upon which it can be determined to any degree of certainty that the writing in question was made “as a part or participation in quasi-judicial proceedings involved with the Florida Workmen’s Compensation Law”. As to the type of “proceeding” before the Florida Industrial Commission, the record merely reflects the filing of a workmen’s compensation claim; an inference that the claim was assigned to a judge of Industrial Claims; the treatment by a physician (defendant) during the pendency of such claim; the filing of a medical report in connection with such treatment with the Workmen’s Compensation Division pursuant to F.S. Section 440.-13(1), F.S.A. during the pendency of such claim; and the closing out of the claim. This procedure or “proceeding” in my opinion falls far short of constituting a quasi-judicial proceeding to which an absolute privilege would as a matter of law attach. See Bloomfield v. Mayo, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 417.

It is my opinion, however, that the writing in question was qualifiedly or conditionally privileged, O’Neal v. Tribune Company, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 535, and that the plaintiff as a matter of law failed to show the existence of actual malice and consequently the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. See State Plant Board v. Smith, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 401.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

June 14, 2024

SC-2023-0460

Ex parte Benjamin Young. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO 

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Benjamin Young v. State 

of Alabama) (Colbert Circuit Court: CC-16-339.60; Criminal Appeals: CR21-0393).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on June 14, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Bryan, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Shaw, 

Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, Stewart, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
#### Verna Mae DAVISON and J. L. Davison, Petitioners, v. PENSACOLA RESTAURANT SUPPLY CO., INC., and Insurance Company of North America, Respondents.

No. 42988.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 22, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 3, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.

CARLTON, C. J., ROBERTS, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., and WILLIS, Circuit Judge, concur.

McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
# Official Journal L 45/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 45 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6215 February 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 45

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6215 February 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Regulation No 83 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the emission of pollutants according to engine fuel requirements [2019/253] | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Regulation No 83 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the emission of pollutants according to engine fuel requirements [2019/253]

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
NO. 07-01-0492-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

JUNE 28, 2002

______________________________

TROY LEE DON HARMS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 34,541-E; HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS, and JOHNSON, JJ.

 Troy Lee Don Harms (appellant) appeals from a judgment revoking his community

supervision and adjudicating him guilty of aggravated robbery. We affirm.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, on March 13, 1995, appellant entered a plea of guilty

to a charge of aggravated robbery. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed

appellant on 10 years community supervision. On November 15, 2001, the State filed a

motion to proceed with the adjudication of guilt on the original charge to which appellant

plead true. The trial court found that appellant had violated the terms of his community

supervision, revoked that supervision, adjudicated him guilty of aggravated robbery, and
sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment. Appellant timely noticed his appeal and counsel

was appointed. The latter moved to withdraw after filing a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and representing that he

had searched the record and found no arguable grounds for reversal. The motion and brief

illustrated that appellant was informed of his rights to review the appellate record and file

his own brief. So too did we inform appellant that any brief he cared to file had to be filed

by June 27, 2002. To date, appellant has filed no brief. 

After conducting an independent review of the record, we find no reversible error.

Appellant represented to the court via the plea admonishment papers he signed that he

was 1) properly indicted, 2) represented by legal counsel, and 3) mentally competent when

he entered his plea. Moreover, no appeal was taken within 30 days from the date of

appellant’s guilty plea complaining of error occurring at that time. Thus, we have no

jurisdiction over any purported error arising from or prior to the plea hearing. Manuel v.

State, 944 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d

77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Finally, appellant plead true to the allegations contained

in the motion to adjudicate guilt, and the punishment levied was within the range provided

by statute.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed. 

 Brian Quinn 

 Justice 

Do not publish.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 29778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13595]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-172-000]


American Municipal Power, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 15, 2018, American Municipal Power, Inc. 
submitted an application for approval of revenue requirement for 
reactive power service in MISO.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbfdfee9f8f4d5d7d2d5dee8cecbcbd4c9cffbdddec9d895dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e282b3c2d21000207000b3d1b1e1e011c1a2e080b1c0d40090118">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 6, 2018.

    Dated: June 19, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13595 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Memorandum 

Subject: Summary of Stakeholder Meetings 

From: John Bradfield 

To: Dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-6002, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0603, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 

This memorandum summarizes meetings held with stakeholders in the month of July, 2014 

On July 7, Sector Policy and Programs Division Associate Director Kevin Culligan met with Misa Paden of 

the Japan Bank for International Cooperation. Mr. Culligan generally answered basic questions about 

the clean power plan proposal for existing sources. 

On July 10, Sector Policy and Programs Division Associate Director Kevin Culligan met with Surina Didi of 

the UBS Utilities Investment Research Team. Mr. Culligan generally answered basic questions about the 

clean power plan proposal for existing sources. 

On July 10, Office of Atmospheric Programs Director Sarah Dunham, Climate Change Division Director 

Paul Gunning, Sector Policy and Programs Division Director Peter Tsirigotis an Associate Directors Kevin 

Culligan, Fred Thompson and Steve Fruh, met with Peter Zalzal of the Environmental Defense Fund. EPA 

generally answered basic questions about the clean power plan proposal for existing sources. 

On July 10, Sector Policy and Programs Division Associate Director Kevin Culligan met with Paul 

Fisch beck of Carnegie Mellon University. EPA generally answered basic questions about the clean power 

plan proposal for existing sources. 

On July 15, Sector Policy and Programs Division Associate Director Kevin Culligan met with Stacey Davis 

of the Center for Clean Air Policy. EPA generally answered basic questions about the clean power plan 

proposal for existing sources. 

On July 18, Sector Policy and Programs Division Associate Director Kevin Culligan met with Jessica Furey 

of lS Power Development. EPA generally answered basic questions about the clean power plan 

proposal for existing sources. 

On July 22, Sector Policy and Programs Division Associate Director Kevin Culligan met with Joe Kruger of 

the Canadian Electricity Association. EPA generally answered basic questions about the clean power 

plan proposal for existing sources. 

On July 22, Sector Policy and Programs Division Director Peter Tsirigotis and Associate Director Kevin 

Culligan met with Dick Wilson of First Energy Corp. EPA generally answered basic questions about the 

clean power plan proposal for existing sources. 

Internet Address {URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
On July 23, Sector Policy and Programs Division Associate Director Kevin Culligan met with Nick Pearson 

of the Tennessee Valley Authority. EPA generally answered basic questions about the clean power plan 

proposal for existing sources.
H. Res. 106

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

May 5, 1994.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 20) to amend title 5, United States Code, to

restore to Federal civilian employees their right to participate

voluntarily, as private citizens, in the political processes of

the Nation, to protect such employees from improper political

solicitations, and for other purposes. The first reading of the

bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against the

bill and against its consideration are waived. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil

Service. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except those

printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompany-
2

HRES 106 EH

ing this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in

the order printed and by the named proponent, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in

the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except

as specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the

Committee of the Whole. At the conclusion of consideration

of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have

been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
# Official Journal C 173I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 173I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6527 April 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 173I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6527 April 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2022/C 173 I/01 | Electronic identification schemes notified pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2022/C 173 I/01

Electronic identification schemes notified pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
## In The **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo** 

________________________ No. 07 - 22 - 00153 - CR ________________________ LUIS ALBERTO LUJAN, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 222nd District Court Deaf Smith C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. CR - 21B - 016 , Honorable Roland Saul , Presiding 

### October 26 , 20 2 2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS , JJ. Appellant, Luis Alberto Lujan, appeals from his conviction for assaulting a peace officer. Through his sole issue, he urges that the assessment of a $15 time payment fee in the bill of costs was premature due to his perfection of an appeal. The State conceded error. See Pruitt v. State , 646 S.W.3d 879 , 886 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 2022, no pet.) (stating that a defendant ’ s appeal suspends the duty to pay fines, court costs, and2 restitution; therefore, assessment of a time payment fee before the appellate mandate issues is premature ”) . As mandate in this ca use has yet to issu e , we delete from the bill of costs the premature time payment fee assessed . This is done without prejudice to a subsequent assessment in accordance with statute and other applicable laws. We sustain appellant’s sole issue and affirm t he judgment. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.
#### Raymond B. GAUTREAU v. MODERN FINANCE COMPANY OF GONZALES, INC.

No. 61738.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: Raymond Gautreau applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of *995Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Ascension. 358 So.2d 980.

Writ denied.
#### In the Interest of Gloria WHITE, a child.

No. 73-348.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 28, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated January 14, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2053 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-249496) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


January 14, 2021