alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GHG SCC Estimates for Soybean-Based Biodiesel (2013-2042)

Year GHG Change SCC 5% DC SCC 3% DC SCC 2.5% DC SCC 3% DC 

(95th%) SCC 5% DC SCC 3% DC SCC 2.5% DC SCC 3% DC (95th%)

in tons of CO2-

e/MMBTU (2010$/ton) (2010$/ton) (2010$/ton) (2010$/ton) (2010$gallon) (2010$gallon) (2010$gallon) (2010$gallon)

2013 0.0968 $5.55 $23.82 $38.62 $72.52 -$0.54 -$2.31 -$3.74 -$7.02

2014 -0.0098 $5.77 $24.33 $39.30 $74.17 $0.06 $0.24 $0.39 $0.73

2015 -0.0098 $5.99 $24.84 $39.99 $75.82 $0.06 $0.24 $0.39 $0.74

2016 -0.0098 $6.21 $25.35 $40.68 $77.46 $0.06 $0.25 $0.40 $0.76

2017 -0.0098 $6.43 $25.86 $41.37 $79.11 $0.06 $0.25 $0.41 $0.78

2018 -0.0098 $6.64 $26.37 $42.05 $80.75 $0.07 $0.26 $0.41 $0.79

2019 -0.0098 $6.86 $26.88 $42.74 $82.40 $0.07 $0.26 $0.42 $0.81

2020 -0.0098 $7.08 $27.39 $43.43 $84.04 $0.07 $0.27 $0.43 $0.82

2021 -0.0098 $7.39 $28.06 $44.30 $86.05 $0.07 $0.28 $0.43 $0.84

2022 -0.0098 $7.70 $28.73 $45.17 $88.06 $0.08 $0.28 $0.44 $0.86

2023 -0.0098 $8.00 $29.40 $46.04 $90.07 $0.08 $0.29 $0.45 $0.88

2024 -0.0098 $8.31 $30.08 $46.91 $92.08 $0.08 $0.30 $0.46 $0.90

2025 -0.0098 $8.62 $30.75 $47.78 $94.09 $0.08 $0.30 $0.47 $0.92

2026 -0.0098 $8.92 $31.42 $48.64 $96.10 $0.09 $0.31 $0.48 $0.94

2027 -0.0098 $9.23 $32.09 $49.51 $98.11 $0.09 $0.31 $0.49 $0.96

2028 -0.0098 $9.54 $32.76 $50.38 $100.12 $0.09 $0.32 $0.49 $0.98

2029 -0.0098 $9.85 $33.43 $51.25 $102.13 $0.10 $0.33 $0.50 $1.00

2030 -0.0098 $10.15 $34.11 $52.12 $104.14 $0.10 $0.33 $0.51 $1.02

2031 -0.0098 $10.46 $34.78 $52.99 $106.15 $0.10 $0.34 $0.52 $1.04

2032 -0.0098 $10.77 $35.45 $53.86 $108.16 $0.11 $0.35 $0.53 $1.06

2033 -0.0105 $11.08 $36.12 $54.73 $110.17 $0.12 $0.38 $0.57 $1.15

2034 -0.0105 $11.38 $36.79 $55.60 $112.18 $0.12 $0.38 $0.58 $1.17

2035 -0.0105 $11.69 $37.47 $56.47 $114.19 $0.12 $0.39 $0.59 $1.19

2036 -0.0105 $12.00 $38.14 $57.34 $116.20 $0.13 $0.40 $0.60 $1.22

2037 -0.0105 $12.30 $38.81 $58.21 $118.21 $0.13 $0.41 $0.61 $1.24

2038 -0.0105 $12.61 $39.48 $59.08 $120.22 $0.13 $0.41 $0.62 $1.26

2039 -0.0105 $12.92 $40.15 $59.95 $122.23 $0.14 $0.42 $0.63 $1.28

2040 -0.0105 $13.23 $40.82 $60.82 $124.24 $0.14 $0.43 $0.64 $1.30

2041 -0.0105 $13.54 $41.42 $61.51 $126.00 $0.14 $0.43 $0.64 $1.32

2042 -0.0105 $13.85 $42.01 $62.19 $127.76 $0.14 $0.44 $0.65 $1.34

TOTAL: -0.1941 $284.07 $977.10 $1,503.03 $2,982.97 $2.28 $7.30 $11.01 $22.30

Annualized 

Average: -0.0065 $9.47 $32.57 $50.10 $99.43 $0.024 $0.122 $0.205 $0.372
EXHIBIT 31.1

# CERTIFICATION

I, David H. Roche, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Minn Dak Farmers Cooperative;

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

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

4. The Companys other
certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and Rule 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls
and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of
the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation.

c) disclosed in this report any
change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys
internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Companys other
certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors
and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors:

a) all significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.

|Date: | 1-14-04 |  | /s/   David H. Roche                 
|----- | ------- |  | -------------------------------------
|      |         |  |                                      
|      |         |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



---
251 La. 754

#### Clarence MECHE v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY et al.

No. 49068.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: Clarence Meche applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 204 So.2d 719.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,465
<SECURITIES>                                    51,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  249,566
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               384,523
<PP&E>                                         229,648
<DEPRECIATION>                                 224,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 462,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,113,302
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,970
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,017,616
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   462,473
<SALES>                                        816,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               816,383
<CGS>                                          363,171
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  953,594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (141,216)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (141,216)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (141,216)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Roger W. STONER, Appellant, v. FLORIDA TELCOM, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-982.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 11, 1974.

Rehearing Denied April 18, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


     I, Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Novell, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

     (1)  The Company's periodic report on Form 10-K for the period ended
          October 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
          as amended; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                      * * *

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

/s/ Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr.
------------------------------------
Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr.

Date: January 29, 2004
#### James PAIR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-270.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1974.

*582Phillip Hubbart, Public Defender, and Eva Weisner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Lance Stelzer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of breaking and entering and sentenced to five years imprisonment on May 7, 1955. On October 23rd of that year he escaped from confinement. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to ten years in the state prison for the crime of escape. Subsequently, he was sentenced for other crimes and is now confined in the state prison. This appeal is from a denial of a petition pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrPR, 33 F.S.A., addressed to the escape conviction.

The trial court denied evidentiary hearing upon the ground that appellant was not presently incarcerated under the escape sentence. There are many cases in the Reporter which support the position of the trial judge; however, the State has filed a confession of error in which it suggests that the requirment has been changed by more recent cases. Based upon the decisions in the cases of United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), and Pair v. State, Fla.App.1973, 275 So.2d 581, we find that it was error to deny appellant an evidentiary hearing. This cause is remanded' to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant’s allegation that he was unconstitutionally deprived of counsel is well-founded, and if so appellant’s motion shall be granted.

Reversed and remanded.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Joel T. PRICKETT, Jr. v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 60653.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1978.

In re: Joel T. Prickett, Jr., applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Jefferson.

Denied.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

EyeCare  Centers  of  America,  Inc.
Ratio  of  Earnings  to  Fixed  Charges
Exhibit  12.1


<S>                                         <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
                                            1/2/1999   1/1/2000   12/30/00   12/29/01   12/28/2002
                                            ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ----------

Net earnings (loss). . . . . . . . . . . .   (26,273)    (5,257)   (15,534)    (9,072)      14,243
Add: Income tax provision. . . . . . . . .        13        384        766      1,239        1,258
                                            ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ----------
                                             (26,260)    (4,873)   (14,768)    (7,833)      15,501

Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense, net. . . . . . . . . .    23,804     25,091     28,964     27,537       21,051
  Interest factor portion of rent expense.     6,888      8,466      9,923     10,229       10,600
                                            ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ----------
  Total fixed charges. . . . . . . . . . .    30,692     33,557     38,887     37,766       31,651

Earnings (loss) before income. . . . . . .     4,432     28,684     24,119     29,933       47,152
  taxes and fixed charges

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges . . . .      0.14       0.85       0.62       0.79         1.49
</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.8
  (LOGO)
    
    (BT LOGO)
 Clay Brendishc/o BT Centre81 Newgate StLondonEC1A 7AJ
    
    30 July 2008
    Yours sincerely/s/ Andrew J. ParkerANDREW J. PARKER
 To:
    
    Andrew Parker
Company Secretary
  /s/ Clay Brendish
    
    
    
    1 August 2008Clay Brendish
    
    
    
    Date
 Andrew J ParkerCompany SecretaryBT GroupBT Centre
81 Newgate Street
London EC1A 7AJ
United Kingdom
    
    tel
fax
mob
e-mail
    
    +44 (0)20 7356 5237
+44 (0)20 7356 6135
+44 (0)7802 773635
andrew.j.parker@bt.com
    
    (LOGO)
    
    BT Group plc
Registered Office:
81 Newgate Street, London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England and Wales no. 4190816www.bt.com
#### Wilfredo COLLADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-543.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 21, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel., Edward DE COURSEY, Relator, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections for the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-881.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 20, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### Greta LANDSBERG, Appellant, v. Jack LANDSBERG, Appellee.

Nos. 73-532, 71-866, 71-867.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 24, 1973.

Milton M. Ferrell, Miami, for appellant.

Bernard B. Weksler, Miami, for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant wife seeks interlocutory review1 of an order entered on a mandate issued by this court based on our decision in Landsberg v. Landsberg, Fla.App.1972, 259 So.2d 727.

We have carefully reviewed the record, briefs, arguments of counsel and the substance of the order on the mandate and have concluded that the trial judge’s order did not conform to the directions therein contained. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the order on the mandate is reversed and remanded to the trial court for the purpose of the taking of further testimony, or a determination from the record of the specific amounts or items of responsibility of the appellee husband in accordance with the original final judgment, which gross amount is to be determined and divided into portions representing an alimony and child support award without diminution or increase2 in the gross amount of the husband’s financial responsibilities as previously determined. Therefore, the order appealed from is hereby reversed and remanded with directions to conform the order on the mandate to our initial decision and to conform herewith.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

1

. Appellant filed an interlocutory appeal from the order in addition to a motion for an order directing compliance with the mandate in the prior cases of 71-866 and 71-867. We have consolidated them into this interlocutory appeal.

2

. This is not, in any way, to preclude any future modification thereof if properly presented pursuant to § 61.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
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 Cutter & Buck Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 15, 2003 (the Report), I, Frances M.
Conley, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
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/ Frances M. ConleyFrances M. ConleyChief Executive
  Officer(Principal
  Executive Officer)  28


---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                        1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         6,439
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                     273
<INVENTORY>                                    6,671
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              22,286
<PP&E>                                         6,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                33,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         22,712
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          89
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  33,645
<SALES>                                       46,311
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              46,311
<CGS>                                         33,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 11,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  571
<INCOME-TAX>                                      42
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              529
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     529
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .05






</TABLE>
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 Commerce Economic Development Administration
 AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
 ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment.
 SUMMARY: The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
[07/11/2018 through 07/17/2018]
Firm name
Firm address
Date
                             accepted for 
                             investigation
Product(s)Mectron Engineering Company, Inc.
400 South Industrial Drive, Saline, MI 48176
7/13/2018
The firm manufactures high-speed industrial inspection machinery.Seidel, LLC
2223 Thomaston Avenue, Waterbury, CT 06704
7/13/2018
The firm provides aluminum anodizing finishes for various industries and applications.Meyer Wells, Inc.
421 3rd Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98119
7/17/2018
The firm manufactures commercial and residential furniture, mostly made of reclaimed wood.
 Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. Irette Patterson, Program Analyst.


[FR Doc. 2018-15850 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
No. 00-6555.

#### Hesse *v.*Department of State.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
254 La. 125

#### STATE ex rel. Henry BABIN, Jr. v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 49888.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 5, 1969.

In re: Henry Babin, Jr. applying for writ of mandamus.

The application is denied.

The showing made does not warrant the relief sought.