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


       
<S>                                 <C>
<ARTICLE>                                   UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from FPL's condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31,
1997 and condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

<CIK>                               0000037634
<NAME>           Florida Power & Light Company
<MULTIPLIER>                             1,000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                          PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>           $9,078,889
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>           $849,153
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              $1,046,987
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                    $0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                        $519,113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     $11,494,142
<COMMON>                                    $0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                   $0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         $0
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>      $4,672,615
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  $38,000
<PREFERRED>                           $226,250
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                $2,727,827
<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>      $3,829,450
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      $11,494,142
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           $1,398,768
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                   $57,828
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          $1,173,286
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          $1,231,114
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>               $167,654
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                      $1,314
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>        $168,968
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>               $59,206
<NET-INCOME>                          $109,762
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             $5,710
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>         $104,052
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    $0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                   $0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                $479,668
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               $0
<EPS-DILUTED>                               $0

        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.01



           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
     OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



In connection with the Quarterly Report of General
Employment Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an
officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     (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 the operations of the Company.



Date:  August 2, 2005                     By:  /s/ Herbert F. Imhoff, Jr.
                                          Herbert F. Imhoff, Jr.
                                          Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                          Executive Officer and President
                                          (Chief executive officer)


Date:  August 2, 2005                     By:  /s/ Kent M. Yauch
                                          Kent M. Yauch
                                          Vice President, Chief Financial
                                          Officer and Treasurer
                                          (Chief financial officer)
From: Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US

To: "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov> Cc: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

RobertJ W ayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/22 /2012 12:04 AM Subject: Revised GHG NSPS preamble 

### Dom, The attached version of the preamble responds to the comments your staff provided on transitional units as well as a few other fixes. We also fixed a few inconsistencies in chapter 5 of the RIA

- Kevin
EGU NSPS preamble 3 - 21.docx
RIA chap 5.docx
#### STATE of Louisiana v. William MONTGOMERY.

No. 61740.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1978.

John Wilson Reed, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Lindsay A. Larson, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant William Montgomery was charged by bill of information with three counts of armed robbery, violations of La. R.S. 14:64. On September 9, 1976, he was tried before a twelve person jury which found him guilty as charged of each count. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve forty-five (45) years at hard labor on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. He has appealed on the basis of two assignments of error. After reviewing the contentions on the merits, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

However, we note that at defense counsel’s instance we have modified the internal procedure by which criminal cases are reviewed for placement on the regular or summary docket.1 Formerly, criminal appeals lodged in this Court were preliminarily reviewed after the thirty days allowed for filing of defense briefs had elapsed; and the granting of an extension of time in which to file defense briefs did not as a matter of course delay the reviewing process. *See, State*v. *Duhon,*340 So.2d 151 (La.1976). Defense counsel complained that the preliminary decision should in all cases await the filing of a timely brief. We agree and accordingly, have altered our practice so that the granting of an extension postpones our initial review at least until the extension has expired.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Subject to the modification set forth *infra,*the *Duhon,*340 So.2d 151 (La.1976). summary docket system is explained in *State v.*
# Official Journal C 318/25 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 318 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5825 September 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 318

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5825 September 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 318/1 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 August 2015 to 31 August 2015(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2015/C 318/2 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 August 2015 to 31 August 2015(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 318/1

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 August 2015 to 31 August 2015(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2015/C 318/2

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 August 2015 to 31 August 2015(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

8

---

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

EN
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, Hu ff and Senior Judge Haley

A & G COAL CORPORATION AND NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1390-14-3 PER CURIAM DECEMBER 16, 2014 EDWARD BRIGHT

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (S. Vernon Priddy III; Sarah Y. M. Himmel; Two Rivers Law Group, P.C., on brief), for appellants. (Paul L. Phipps; Mingkwan Emme Collins; Lee and Phipps, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

A & G Coal Corporation and New Hampshir e Insurance Company (appellants) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Comp ensation Commission (the “commissi on”). Appellants allege the commission erred in upholding de cisions of the deputy commissione r: 1) refusing to leave the record open after the hearing to permit appellant s to obtain an independe nt medical examination of Edward Bright; 2) finding Bright proved he sustained a work injury by accident; and 3) concluding Bright established a mechanical change to his body cause d by the accident. We

have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons st ated by the commission in its final opinion. See Bright v. A & G Coal, Corp., JCN VA00000851999 (June 30, 2014). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - in the materials before the Cour t and argument would not aid the de cisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
# Official Journal L 142/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 142 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6520 May 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 142

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6520 May 2022

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2022/718 of amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2022 | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2022/718 of amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2022

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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

RODMEN FOSTER, BV-3203, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

KATHLEEN KANE, ATTORNEY 

GENERAL FOR STATE OF 

PENNSYLVANIA, MICHAEL C. 

POTTEIGER, CHAIRMAN OF THE 

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF 

PROBATION AND PAROLE, AND JOHN 

E. WETZEL, SECRETARY OF THE 

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 180 MM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2014, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
#### Webster CLINE, Sr., et al. v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CORP. et al. Webster CLINE, Jr., et al. v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CORP. et al.

Nos. 6101, 6102.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

March 8, 1974.

Rehearings Denied April 9, 1974.

*264A. D. Freeman, Morphy, Freeman, Hol-brook & Faulkner, New Orleans, for plaintiff s-appellants.

James W. Hailey, Jr., Mouton, Roy, Car-mouche, Hailey, Bivins & McNamara, Lafayette, for Brown Stove Works, Inc.

Hugh M. Glenn, Jr., Bienvenu & Culver, New Orleans, for Magic Chef, Inc.

Darryl W. Bubrig, Sr., Bubrig & Scan-durro, Buras, for Emmett Adolph d/b/a Emmett Adolph Trailer Park.

Before REDMANN, STOULIG and BOUTALL, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment dismissing their suit against two manufacturers of gas stoves for damages from a house-trailer fire which occurred when the trailer stove was turned on.1

Each manufacturer’s motion was based on (1) an affidavit that it does not manufacture or supply a flexible tubing for gas, and (2) deposition testimony by the investigating deputy state fire marshal that he found a pinhead-sized hole in a flexible tubing bringing gas to a dryer, and did not find any leaks in the stove lines (though he did find one burner open). The marshal also expressed the opinion that the hole in the tubing was the source of gas which ignited causing the explosion he was told occurred. Plaintiff husband, an eye witness, testified in deposition there was no explosion. The gas dryer and tubing had been installed for seven months without incident.

In our judgment, movers showed only that there was no dispute that (1) a hole existed in the tubing after the fire and (2) the tubing was not made or supplied by movers. Movers did not remove dispute by showing that an inspection of the stove revealed that it was not defective, or by showing that the fire was not caused by any defect of the stove.

Doubtless we could affirm were this the only evidence produced by a trial on the .merits. But the affidavits and depositions do not “show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”, as required by C.C.P. art. 966 for summary judgment.

The judgments dismissing the stove manufacturers are reversed. Costs to await final outcome.

1

. Not at issue is the unappealed dismissal of a third-party demand against the trailer lot operator.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 2019, (Airport Firefighters of Broward County), Petitioner, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, et al., Respondents.

No. 41400.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 3, 1971.

*196Richard A. Sicking and Joseph H. Kap-lan of Kaplan, Dorsey, Sicking & Roden-berg, Miami, for petitioner.

John U. Lloyd, County Atty., and Betty Lynn Lee, Asst. County Atty., for respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner seeks mandamus to compel respondents to engage in collective bargaining, contending that respondents are failing to perform their duty under Article I, § 6 (Declaration of Rights), Constitution of Florida 1968, F.S.A.

After hearing argument of counsel on the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the Court on September 15, 1971, issued its Alternative Writ of Mandamus commanding respondents herein to accept or reject the proposed contract submitted on March 17, 1971, and otherwise engage in good faith collective bargaining with the relator or show cause why Peremptory Writ of Mandamus commanding the same to be done should not issue. Upon consideration of the return to the Alternative Writ of Mandamus, it appears that substantial and numerous issues of fact exist which require the taking of testimony for determination. Florida Appellate Rule 4.5, subd. a (2), 32 F.S.A. provides:

> “(2) Writs Raising Issue of Fact Will Not Be Heard. When it appears that an application raises questions of fact which will require the taking of testimony said application will not be entertained by the Court.”

The Court having consistently ruled that it will not entertain a Petition for Writ of Mandamus which raises substantial issues of fact, this case is hereby transferred to the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

We have not overlooked this Court’s decision in State of Florida ex rel. Soodhalter v. Baker, 248 So.2d 468, which apparently prohibits the transfer to the circuit court under the circumstances here presented. However, we hereby recede from any language in the Soodhalter opinion which could be construed as barring a direct transfer from this Court or a District Court of Appeal when a circuit court has original jurisdiction to entertain the cause.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 164 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 164

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 5, 1993.
    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. 820) to amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 
to enhance manufacturing technology development and transfer, to authorize 
appropriations for the Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce, 
including the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and for other 
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 
2(l)(6) of rule XI 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 Science, Space, and Technology. 
After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology now 
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in section 2 of this 
resolution. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall be 
considered as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as modified, for failure to comply with clause 5(a) of 
rule XXI are waived. 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in 
the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or 
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified. 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 with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology now printed in the bill is modified 
by striking section 506.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Order entered May 12, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-15-00963-CR

CORNELIUS TURNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15-52355-M



### ORDER Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Bridges and Lang

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to issue the

mandate in this appeal INSTANTER

.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
# C_2016410EN.01001001.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Klein v Commission

(Case T-309/10 RENV) (1)

1

((Non-contractual liability - Directive 93/42/EEC - Harmonised system for the safety and health protection of patients, users and, where appropriate, other persons, with regard to the use of medical devices - Article 8 - Notification of a decision prohibiting placing on the market - No position adopted by the Commission - Article 18 - Wrongful CE marking - Harm - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link))

(2016/C 410/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Christoph Klein (Großgmain, Austria) (represented initially by: H.-J. Ahlt and M. Ahlt, and subsequently by: H.-J. Ahlt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents, and C. Winkler, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the breach by the Commission of its obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Christoph Klein, the European Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Christoph Klein, the European Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

1

---
### Tabl e o f Content s Volum e Tw o 1 . Genera l Permi t

Registratio n Form s A . T o Instal l an dOperat e UST s B . Installatio n Checklis t C . Operatin g Certificat e ' D . T o Decommissio n Unregistere dUST s , E . T o Modif

y Tan k Owner , Permitte e o r

Propert y Owne r

Informatio n F . Retu mt o Servic e Applicatio n 2 . Temporar y Closur e Form s G . 30-Day Notic e H . Reques t

for Extensio n 3 . US T Syste mModificatio n Form s I . 30-Da y Notic e J . Report an dChecklis t 4 . Decommissioning/Change-in-Servic e Form s K . 30-Day Notic e L . Checklist

an dSit e Assessmen t

Report 5 . Cathodi c Protectio n Tes t Report For m 6 . US T Servic e Provide r an dSuperviso r

Form s M . Servic e Provide r

Licens e Applicatio n N . Superviso r

Licens e Applicatio n 7 . Soi l Matri x Cleanu p Servic e Provide r an dSuperviso r

Form s O . Licensin g Exa mStud y Guid e Orde r For m P . Servic e Provide r

Licens e Applicatio n Q . Superviso r

Licens e Applicatio n 8 . Releas e Reportin g an dCleanu p Form s R . Petroleu mReleas e For m S . Voluntary Cos t

Recover y Agreemen t T . Cleanu p Progra m20-Da y Report For mU . Soi l Matri x Rule s Checklis t an dScor e Shee t 9 . US T Cleanu p Manua l 10 . Risk-Base dDecisio n Makin g for th e Remediatio n o f

Petroleum-Contaminate dSite s 11 . Enforcemen t

Guidanc e V . US T Fiel dCitation s - Guidanc e for Expedite dEnforcemen t

o f US T Complianc e Violation s W . Fiel dCitatio n for

US T Violation s X . US T Facilit y Inspectio n an dComplianc e Enforcemen t Y . Enforcemen t

Guidanc e for

Fiel dStaf

f - 12 . DE Q Laboratory Fiel dSamplin g Referenc e Guid e 13 . Agenc y Qualit y Managemen t Plan 14 . Quality Assuranc e Projec t Pla n (Draf

t 6/21/10 ) 15 . Ho w t o Prepar e for

a n US T Complianc e Inspectio n 16 . US T Facilit y Inspectio n Report