alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TITLE: "CROSSTALK" MAGAZINE / Program 3807-SP

Term: JUNE 1, 2014 TO MAY 31, 2015 (W/OPTIONS)

 


Basis BKR PRINTING LITHEXCEL NPC, Inc

Item No. DESCRIPTION of State 430 Code 08870 State 300 Code 52436 State 370 Code 64115

Award UNIT RATE COST UNIT RATE COST UNIT RATE COST

I. PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION:

(a) Complete Cover (Four Color Process) ..... per cover set

(1) Makeready and setup 6 x 622.00 3,732.00 380.00 2,280.00 300.00 1,800.00

(2) Per 100 copies 50 x 35.00 1,750.00 6.00 300.00 17.00 850.00

(b) Text (Black Ink) ..... per page

(1) Makeready and Setup 216 x 17.50 3,780.00 6.00 1,296.00 21.00 4,536.00

(2) Per 100 copies 1800 x 1.90 3,420.00 1.00 1,800.00 0.97 1,746.00

II. PROOFS

(a) Digital Content proof...................................... per page-size unit..... 240 x 2.00 480.00 2.00 480.00 1.50 360.00

(b) One-piece High Resolution Digital Color proofs ..... per page-size unit ..... 24 x 37.00 888.00 16.00 384.00 15.00 360.00

(c) System Timework...................................................... per hour..... 3 x 60.00 180.00 80.00 240.00 150.00 450.00

III. PAPER: Per 100 leaves

(a) White Litho Coated Book, 70 lb. 900 x 1.55 1,395.00 2.00 1,800.00 2.50 2,250.00

(b) White No 2 Litho Coated Cover, 80 lb. 100 x 5.00 500.00 6.00 600.00 7.50 750.00

CONTRACTOR TOTALS $16,125.00 $9,180.00 $13,102.00

DISCOUNT if any 5.00% 806.25 1.00% 91.80 0.25% 32.76

DISCOUNTED TOTALS $15,318.75 $9,088.20 $13,069.24

Basis PRODUCTION PRESS SIGNATURE OFFSET STARLINE PRINTING

Item No. DESCRIPTION of State 120 Code 71652 State 050 Code 80375 State 300 Code 83186

Award UNIT RATE COST UNIT RATE COST UNIT RATE COST

I. PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION:

(a) Complete Cover (Four Color Process) ..... per cover set

(1) Makeready and setup 6 x 190.00 1,140.00 215.00 1,290.00 600.00 3,600.00

(2) Per 100 copies 50 x 14.95 747.50 6.80 340.00 10.00 500.00

(b) Text (Black Ink) ..... per page

(1) Makeready and Setup 216 x 9.75 2,106.00 22.25 4,806.00 12.50 2,700.00

(2) Per 100 copies 1800 x 1.17 2,106.00 0.55 990.00 1.00 1,800.00

II. PROOFS

(a) Digital Content proof...................................... per page-size unit..... 240 x 2.17 520.80 2.50 600.00 4.25 1,020.00

(b) One-piece High Resolution Digital Color proofs ..... per page-size unit ..... 24 x 17.50 420.00 8.00 192.00 8.00 192.00

(c) System Timework...................................................... per hour..... 3 x 118.00 354.00 50.00 150.00 35.00 105.00

III. PAPER: Per 100 leaves

(a) White Litho Coated Book, 70 lb. 900 x 1.26 1,134.00 1.55 1,395.00 1.50 1,350.00

(b) White No 2 Litho Coated Cover, 80 lb. 100 x 7.05 705.00 3.60 360.00 3.00 300.00

$11,567.00

CONTRACTOR TOTALS $9,233.30 $10,123.00 Net

DISCOUNT if any 5.00% 461.67 5.00% 506.15 $11,567.00

DISCOUNTED TOTALS $8,771.63 $9,616.85

AWARDED

 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017008EN.01000101.xml

| 11.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

10 January 2017

(2017/C 8/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0567 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,84 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4339 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86940 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5595 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0737 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0750 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,70 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3721 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4958 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,9912 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4400 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3992 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,1947 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5165 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5193 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 269,08 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,4773 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3176 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5645 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 043,54 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7282 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,384 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 63,5057 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,640 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3743 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,6397 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,0855 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0567

JPY

Japanese yen

122,84

DKK

Danish krone

7,4339

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86940

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5595

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0737

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0750

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,70

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3721

RON

Romanian leu

4,4958

TRY

Turkish lira

3,9912

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4400

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3992

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,1947

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5165

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5193

KRW

South Korean won

1 269,08

ZAR

South African rand

14,4773

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3176

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5645

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 043,54

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7282

PHP

Philippine peso

52,384

RUB

Russian rouble

63,5057

THB

Thai baht

37,640

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3743

MXN

Mexican peso

22,6397

INR

Indian rupee

72,0855

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Alfred SAMPEDRO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-966.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Robinson *v.*Meyer.

It is within tlie sound discretion of the circuit court to permit a non-resident plaintiff to file a bond for cost pending a motion to dismiss for want of such bond.

*Error to Union Circuit Court.*

Hon. John T. Bearden, Circuit Judge.

Carleton, for the plaintiff.

Tlie filing of a bond for cost was a prerequisite to the institution of a suit by a non-resident. *Sec. 1, eh. Ifi, Gould’s Dig.; 1 Ark., 21fi; 2 ib., 109; 10 ib., 169; 17 ib., SOS.*The words of the statute are plain and unambiguous, that the non-resident *shall*file a bond for cost, and cannot be construed away. The cases heretofore decided by this court -were cases of amendments ; and it was ruled that it was in the discretion of the circuit court to permit amendments of defective process ; so, in *Perkins v. Reagan, 11¡. Ark., 4-8,*a defective bond for cost was permitted to be amended; but in that case the non-resident attempted to comply with the statute; in this, he lias entirely disregarded it.

Compton, J.

The plaintiff’ below was a non-resident of the State, and omitted to file a bond for costs, as required by the statute; for which omission the defendant moved to dismiss the suit. Pending the motion of the defendant, the court permitted the plaintiff to file a bond for costs, and overruled the motion to dismiss ; to which the defendant excepted, and declining to make further defense, final judgment was rendered, and he brought error. *80Permission to file the bond for costs, under the circumstances, was matter within the sound discretion of the circuit court, and this court, adhering to former decisions, will not disturb the exercise1 of that discretion. *Perkins v. Reagan, 14 Ark., 47; Campbell v. Garrett*& *Scudder, 24 Ark., 279.*

Judgment affirmed.
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 2, 2014(Date of earliest event reported)December 2, 2014





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 2, 2014, we announced our 2015 financial guidance.  A copy of the news release is attached as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.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 Partners, L.P. dated December 2, 2014.


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 2, 2014By:/s/ Derek S. ReinersDerek S. ReinersSenior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer





3


---




EXHIBIT INDEX








ExhibitNumberDescription99.1News release issued by ONEOK Partners, L.P. dated December 2, 2014.








4
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

          - [OMB Control No. 2900-0618]

# AGENCY:

Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.

# ACTION:

Notice to withdraw.

# SUMMARY:

                        On June 22, 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) erroneously posted a consecutive 30-day                         **Federal Register**                         Notice (Application by Insured Terminally Ill Person for Accelerated Benefits) Document Number: 2018-13397; OMB control number: 2900-0618.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, at 202-461-5870.

## Correction

VA wishes to inform the public that it is withdrawing FR Document Number: 2018-13397, 83 FR 29155. This was a duplicate 30-day Public Notice published in error. The correct and initial 30-day Notice posted May 24, 2018, Volume 83, No. 101, page 24163, FR Document Number: 2018-11131, which has since concluded.

Dated: June 26, 2018.

By direction of the Secretary.

Cynthia D. Harvey-Pryor,

Department Clearance Officer, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk, Department of Veterans Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2018-14104 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
263 La. 982

#### Eileen Reed GRIFFITH v. Joseph Folse ROY, Sr. J. Folse ROY v. Eileen REED, wife of Joseph Folse ROY, Jr.

No. 53063.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 20, 1972.

In re: Floyd J. Reed applying for supervisory writs and order to show cause.

Application denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

SUMMERS and TATE, JJ., are of the opinion the writ should be granted.
Jacket: 408-469

Title: 2020 Census Island Areas Enumerator and Group Quarters Questionnaires and Envelopes

Agency: Census

Bid Opening: April 17, 2019 at 11:00AM

Bid Terms Discounted Total

$175,555.00 5.0% 20 days $166,777.25

$280,575.76 1.0% 20 days $277,770.00

$437,716.82 0.0% 0 days $437,716.82

$618,700.00 2.0% 20 days $606,326.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

Las Vegas Color

Contractor Name

Cenveo Worldwide

RR Donnelley

Gray Graphics
/
#### Arthur JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-3925.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 5, 1992.

Paul A. Louis, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.

Gregory G. Jones, Tampa, Fla., for defendant-appellee.

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is before us after a remand from the United States Supreme Court for further consideration in light of *Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.,*497 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). *See Jones v. American Broadcasting Cos.,*- U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 239, 112 L.Ed.2d 199 (1990). Having reconsidered our decision affirming the district court’s judgment in *Jones v. American Broadcasting Cos.,*694 F.Supp. 1542 (M.D.Fla.1988), we once again affirm.

*1547The Supreme Court’s ■ opinion in *Milko-vich*addressed an affirmative defense against a defamation action. *Milkovich*clarified that merely labeling an allegedly defamatory statement an “opinion” does not insulate that statement against a defamation action. *Milkovich,*497 U.S. at -, 110 S.Ct. at 2705. While the district court in the present case found that certain allegedly defamatory statements represented non-actionable opinions, *Jones,*694 F.Supp. at 1552, it also found that, “[t]aken in context and without giving the broadcast any ‘tortured’ interpretation, ... a reasonable person would not have interpreted the broadcast, in whole or in part, as being defamatory to [appellant].” *Id.*at 1553.

Without a showing of defamation, however, the question of. affirmative defenses obviously does not arise. The district court’s finding of no defamation therefore logically precedes its finding of non-actionable opinion. Only the latter finding, however, arguably could be affected by the Supreme Court’s opinion in *Milkovich.*Accordingly, we see no reason to reconsider our affirmance of the district court’s judgment on the alternate, and logically prior, ground of absence of defamation.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Matter of M.I.S.

Appellate case number: 01-14-00684-CV

Trial court case number: 12013-05802J

Trial court: 313rd District Court of Harris County

Our review of the above-referenced appeal requires a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the charge submitted to the jury on or about July 17, 2014, reflecting the jury findings 

and signed by the foreperson on July 18, 2014. Accordingly, we order that the district court 

clerk file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the jury charge by no later than November 13, 

2015.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland.

Date: November 5, 2015
#### Joe Edward McFADDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-478.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 26, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County; D. C. Smith, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
#### James M. REASBECK, Judge of the Court of Record in and for Broward County, Florida, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Jessie WALLACE, Jr., Appellee.

No. 42622.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 12, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of General Kinetics Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 29, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Larry M. Heimendinger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ Larry M. HeimendingerLarry M. HeimendingerChief Executive OfficerApril 14, 2004
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09** 
**- 2016** 

EDWARD L. DUTTON ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND; SAM HSU, Captain; MARCUS WESTOVER; D. SUGURE, Officer; JENNIFER POWELL, Officer; MARCUS JON ES, Lieutenant; JOY TURNER ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow , Chief District Judge. ( 8:08

- cv
- 03504

- DKC )

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 2, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Edward L. Dutton, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Prestigiacomo Via, Chief, Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S O FFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Danielle E. Marone, Jo Anna Schmidt, SCHMIDT, DAILEY & O’NEILL, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; James F. Shalleck, Montgomery, Maryland; Lindsay Nichole Warnes, Rockville, Maryland; Jessica Lynn Ellsworth, Steven Paul Hollman, HOGAN & HARSON, LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Edward L. Dutton appeals the district court ’ s order
dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Dutton v. Montgomer y
County Maryland , No. 8:08

- cv
- 03504

- DKC (D. Md. Aug. 11, 2009).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately pr esented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 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>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  260,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,000
<INVENTORY>                                     27,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               298,000
<PP&E>                                       3,727,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,327,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,914,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          335,800
<BONDS>                                        765,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       448,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     157,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,914,800
<SALES>                                        301,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               301,500
<CGS>                                           84,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  180,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                107,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             68,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    68,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### David MUSSELMAN and Galle Musselman, Appellants, v. Patricia MUSSELMAN, Appellee,

No. 72-160.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 15, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.