alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 38285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16688]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904, 
Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Completion of Panel Review

AGENCY: United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of completion of panel review in the matter of 
Supercalendered Paper from Canada: Final Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determination (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA-2015-1904-01).

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

SUMMARY: The NAFTA Secretariat has received motions filed on behalf of 
the U.S. Department of Commerce; the government of Canada; the 
governments of British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, 
and Quebec; Resolute FP Canada Inc. and Resolute FP US Inc.; Catalyst 
Paper Corporation, Catalyst Pulp and Paper Sales Inc. and Catalyst 
Paper (USA) Inc.; Port Hawkesbury Paper LP; Irving Paper Limited; and 
Verso Corporation requesting the termination of panel review in the 
Supercalendered Paper from Canada: Final Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determination (Supercalendered Paper CVD) dispute.
    Given all the participants have filed motions requesting 
termination and pursuant to Rule 71(2) of the NAFTA Rules of Procedure 
for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (Rules), the NAFTA 
Supercalendered Paper CVD dispute has been terminated.
    As a result, and in accordance with Rule 78(a), notice is hereby 
given that the panel review of the NAFTA Supercalendered Paper CVD 
dispute has been completed and the panelists were discharged from their 
duties effective July 24, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul E. Morris, United States 
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides 
a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations 
issued by the government of the United States, the government of 
Canada, and the government of Mexico. There are established Rules, 
which were adopted by the three governments and require Notices of 
Completion of Panel Review to be published in accordance with Rule 78. 
For the complete Rules, please see https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Texts-of-the-Agreement/Rules-of-Procedure/Article-1904.

    Dated: July 31, 2018.
Paul E. Morris,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2018-16688 Filed 8-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
#### Marie T. COLLIER, Appellant, v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO., and Metropolitan Dade County, Appellees.

No. 73-1009.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 18, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,815
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  460,419
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    482,415
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               954,586
<PP&E>                                         497,679
<DEPRECIATION>                                 252,834
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,348,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          875,346
<BONDS>                                        309,796
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       225,049
<OTHER-SE>                                    (62,044)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,348,147
<SALES>                                      4,502,326
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,502,326
<CGS>                                        4,320,861
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,320,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (107,639)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,020
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (124,659)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (6,484)
<NET-INCOME>                                 (131,143)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Francis R. HUNT, Appellant, v. RYDER TRUCK RENTALS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 66-932.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 18, 1967.

*242Sherouse & Corlett, Miami, and Michael D. Sikes, Orlando, for appellant.

Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam and Henry Burnett, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

The appellant, an injured employee of the Miami Herald Publishing Company, sued the appellee as a third party tort-feasor responsible for his injury. Appellant was paid Workmen’s Compensation. The appellee leased a truck to appellant’s employer. Appellant was injured by falling through the bottom of the truck floor when it collapsed under his weight.

The question presented is whether appel-lee, as the lessor of the instrument which caused the injury, was entitled to immunity from suit under the Florida Workmen’s Compensation Statute, or should he be considered a third party liable to the appellant for negligently supplying the lessee (employer) with a defective instrument. The trial judge held that the appellee was immune from suit and entered summary judgment, for the appellee. We affirm.

There is no genuine issue of material fact, and the point presented is whether appellee was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. We think that the construction of § 440.10, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. set forth in Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., Fla. 1966, 182 So.2d 422, requires affirmance of the judgment entered. In that case it was held that motor vehicles leased for a term basis to an employer became, insofar as his employees were concerned, the equivalent of vehicles owned by the employer. Appellant attempts to distinguish the holding in the cited case upon the ground that it concerned actions by a fellow employee. We do not think that the fact that no fellow employee was involved in the present action makes the holding inapplicable, inasmuch as the basis of the holding is the liability for an injury caused by the motor vehicle concerned.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           155,323
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       6,353
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 161,676
<CASH>                                          46,923
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              11,840
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           8,324
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 428,609
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                136,685
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             77,210
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 34,237
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   428,609
<PREMIUMS>                                      63,798
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              6,973
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  43
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  23,739
<BENEFITS>                                      41,074
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      5,251
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            44,702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,526
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (54)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,580
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,580
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  60,786<F1>
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 82,077<F1>
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Before reinsurance recoverable.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 11343.

#### Haupt *v.*Hazlett.

Decided November 30, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court- of Richland county.

*Messrs. Bozvers & Stephenson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. O. Shelter*and *Mr. A. A. Douglas,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis and Si-iaucic, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. POWELL v. WAINWRIGHT.

No. 36589.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                               5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            5886403
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3855478
<ALLOWANCES>                                        94715
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3299373
<PP&E>                                          162041815
<DEPRECIATION>                                   69723855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  137617131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            24477413
<BONDS>                                         147930896
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    137613131
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 13990403
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    13567615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5422503
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2923536)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0



</TABLE>
#### SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Eric COX, a minor, by and through his guardian and next friend, J. W. Caldwell, Appellee.

No. 74-71.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 17, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2011264EN.01000102.xml

| 8.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 264/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 264/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6231 — KKR/Capsugel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 264/02

On 26 July 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011MM.6231. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011MM.6231. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 23 , 2021

.

In The


## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00072

- CV

GIOVANNY LAGUAN , Appellant

V.

WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR MFRA TRUST 2014

- 2 , Appel l ee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 3

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20

- CCV

- 068157

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed December 11, 20 20 . The clerk’s

record was filed May 10, 2021

. No brief was filed.

On O c to ber 14, 2021, this court issued an order stating that unless appellant

filed a brief on or before November 15, 202 1 , the court would dismiss the a ppeal
for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).2

Appellant filed no brief or other response. We d ismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice s Wise, Spain, and Hassan.
Highlights - 12 Months Ended September 30


                                                            1998               
           1997
Operating Revenue                 16,673,300                         17,835,700
New Income                                      $   640,200                    
   755,800
Earnings Per Common Share    $      1.39                           1.64
Gas Deliveries (Mcf)           7,335,000                      7,898,000
Degree Day                                5,979                          6,831
Total Customers                   13,919                         13,837
Construction Expense            $   971,000                        999,700
Property, Plant and Equipment$25,178,457                     22,911,900






Common Stock Data - Market Price (OTC)

                                                                   Dividend
Quarter Ended                     High      Low            Paid
December 31, 1996          $      22      $ 21 1/2    .320
March 31, 1997                         22        21 1/2         .320
June 30, 1997                          21 1/4         20             .320
September 30, 1997                21 1/4         20             .320
December 31, 1997                 21        20             .325
March 31, 1998                         21             20             .325
June 30, 1998                          20             20             .325
September 30, 1998                21        20             .325
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Conolog Corporation
(the "Company") certifies to his knowledge that:

     (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended July
31, 2004 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 that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: October 28, 2004


                                           /s/ ROBERT BENOU
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           (Robert Benou)
                                           Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
                                           Chief Financial Officer

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
Exhibit 23.1

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February
17, 2000 relating to the financial  statements and financial statement schedules
included in Item 8 of this Annual  Report on Form 10-K of  Consolidated  Edison,
Inc. (New York) ("Con  Edison") in: (i) the  Registration  Statement on Form S-3
(No. 333-69013)  relating to the Con Edison Automatic Dividend  Reinvestment and
Cash  Payment  Plan;   (ii)  the   Registration   Statement  on  Form  S-8  (No.
333-04463-99)  relating  to the Con Edison  1996 Stock  Option  Plan;  (iii) the
Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-48475) relating to The Consolidated
Edison Discount Stock Purchase Plan; and (iv) the Registration Statement on Form
S-4 (No.  333-31390)  of  subsidiary of  Consolidated  Edison,  Inc. (New York),
Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Delaware).


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 28, 2000
2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005Earnings:Income (Loss) from continuing operations beforeincome tax provision
    
    $
    (90,269
    )
    
    $
    134,917
    
    
    $
    242,646
    
    
    $
    392,309
    
    
    $
    352,356Add (deduct):Loss (Income) from equity investment (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,699
    
    
    
    (52,599
    )
    
    
    (16,061
    )Interest expense, net of capitalized interest (2)
    
    
    64,440
    
    
    
    62,936
    
    
    
    42,805
    
    
    
    34,791
    
    
    
    38,465Interest component of rental expense (3)
    
    
    7,305
    
    
    
    12,012
    
    
    
    8,711
    
    
    
    7,384
    
    
    
    7,733Earnings (Loss) as adjusted
    
    $
    (18,524
    )
    
    $
    209,865
    
    
    $
    296,861
    
    
    $
    381,885
    
    
    $
    382,493Fixed Charges:Interest expense, net of capitalized interest (2)
    
    $
    64,440
    
    
    $
    62,936
    
    
    $
    42,805
    
    
    $
    34,791
    
    
    $
    38,465Capitalized interest
    
    
    146
    
    
    
    645
    
    
    
    514
    
    
    
    917
    
    
    
    136Dividend requirement on Series B Preferred Stock
(4)
    
    
    3,189
    
    
    
    7,134
    
    
    
    7,651
    
    
    
    8,173
    
    
    
    9,114Interest component of rental expense (3)
    
    
    7,305
    
    
    
    12,012
    
    
    
    8,711
    
    
    
    7,384
    
    
    
    7,733Fixed Charges
    
    $
    75,080
    
    
    $
    82,727
    
    
    $
    59,681
    
    
    $
    51,265
    
    
    $
    55,448Ratio of Earnings (Loss) to Fixed Charges
    
    
    (0.2
    )x
    
    
    2.5
    x
    
    
    5.0
    x

    
    
    7.4
    x

    
    
    6.9
    x
 
 (1)
    
    The year ended December 31, 2006, includes a gain of $41.0 million for the sale of Menlo Worldwides
membership interest in its equity investment. In 2007, operating income included a $2.7 million
first-quarter loss for the write-off of a receivable related to such sale.(2)
    
    Includes amortization of debt issuance cots classified in miscellaneous, net for periods prior to 2007.(3)
    
    Estimate of the interest portion of lease payments.(4)
    
    Dividends on shares of the Series B cumulative convertible preferred stock are used to pay debt
service on notes issued by Con-ways Retirement Savings Plan.
#### STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Robert RISPOLI et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1001.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 23, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; John H. Moore II, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
-1 000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

1 66 131 196 261 326 391 456 521 586 651 716 781 846 911 976 1041 1106 1171 1236 1301 1366 1431 1496 1561

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
spDynoAnalog rpm tqShaf t Nm xTh rottle HS2_SETPOINT HS1_SETPOINT MODE_PAIR



# HS1 Setpoint = Dy

no setpoint HS2 Setpoint = Throttle Setpoint Mode Pair 3: Dy no controlling speed Throttle controlling torque 4: Dy no controlling torque Throttle controlling speed
#### INTERNATIONAL TESTING LABORATORIES INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CRYSTAL CLEAN OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-576.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 16, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Fourth Quarter 2002r and 2003




                                    Fourth     Fourth     Standard    Standard
Area                                quarter    quarter    error on    error on
                                     2002r      2003     2003 rate  difference

United States.....................      68.3       68.6        0.2         0.2

  Inside MAs......................      66.5       67.0        0.2         0.2
   In central cities..............      52.0       53.1        0.3         0.4
   Not in central cities (suburbs)      75.1       75.2        0.2         0.3
  Outside MAs.....................      75.8       75.5        0.3         0.4

 Northeast........................      64.8       64.7        0.4         0.5
 Midwest..........................      73.3       73.5        0.3         0.4
 South............................      70.3       70.5        0.2         0.3
 West.............................      62.5       63.8        0.3         0.5
       rRevised