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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summay financial information extracted from the combined
balance sheet of Pegasus Media & Communications Inc., as of March 31, 2000
(unaudited) and the related combined statement of operations and cash flows for
the three months ended March 31, 2000 (unaudited). This information is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          24,046
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,459
<INVENTORY>                                     15,599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,989
<PP&E>                                          76,242
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,124,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,319
<BONDS>                                         82,876
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     559,129
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,124,800
<SALES>                                        103,956
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,956
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (42)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,958)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,806)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (31,152)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     491
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (9,280)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,941)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (234.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (234.95)



</TABLE>
Table 10.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit for the United States and 
                  for Inside and Outside MAs:  Second Quarter 2000 and 1999

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)



                                                     Second quarter 2000
Type of housing unit
                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       8.9        8.1       12.0
      For rent............................       2.5        2.6        2.2
      For sale only.......................       0.9        0.8        1.2
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.7        0.7        0.8
      Held off market.....................       4.7        3.9        7.8
        For occasional use................       1.7        1.3        3.2
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       1.0        0.9        1.1
        For other reasons.................       2.1        1.7        3.5

    Seasonal vacant.......................       3.0        1.6        7.9

    Occupied..............................      88.1       90.3       80.1



                                                     Second quarter 1999
Type of housing unit
                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       9.2        8.5       11.9
      For rent............................       2.6        2.8        2.1
      For sale only.......................       0.9        0.9        1.3
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.9        0.9        0.8
      Held off market.....................       4.8        4.0        7.8
        For occasional use................       1.6        1.2        3.3
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       0.9        0.9        0.8
        For other reasons.................       2.3        2.0        3.7

    Seasonal vacant.......................       2.9        1.7        7.4

    Occupied..............................      87.9       90.0       80.7
NORTHEAST UTILITIES SYSTEM           Exhibit 21
                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Northeast Utilities

  The Connecticut Light and Power Company (100%)
     - CL&P Capital, L.P. (3%)
     - Research Park, Inc. (100%)
     - The City and Suburban Electric and Gas Company (100%)
     - Electric Power Incorporated (100%)
     - The Connecticut Transmission Corporation (100%)
     - The Nutmeg Power Company (100%)
     - The Connecticut Steam Company (100%)
     - CL&P Receivables Corporation (100%)
     - Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (34.5%)
     - Yankee Atomic Electric Company (24.5%)
     - Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (12%)
     - Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (9.5%)

  Public Service Company of New Hampshire (100%)
     - Properties, Inc. (100%)
     - New Hampshire Electric Company (100%)
     - Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (5%)
     - Yankee Atomic Electric Company (7%)
     - Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (5%)
     - Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (4%)

  North Atlantic Energy Corporation (100%)

  North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (100%)

  Western Massachusetts Electric Company (100%)
     - WMECO Receivables Corporation (100%)
     - Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (9.5%)
     - Yankee Atomic Electric Company (7%)
     - Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (3%)
     - Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (2.5%)

  Holyoke Water Power Company (100%)
     - Holyoke Power and Electric Company (100%)

  Charter Oak Energy, Inc. (100%)
     - COE Development Corporation (100%)
     - COE Argentina I Corp. (100%)
     - COE Argentina II Corp. (100%)
     - COE Tejona Corporation (100%)
     - COE Ave Fenix Corporation (100%)

  Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (100%)

  Northeast Utilities Service Company (100%)

  The Quinnehtuk Company (100%)

  The Rocky River Realty Company (100%)

  Mode 1 Communications, Inc.  (100%)

  Select Energy, Inc. (100%)

  HEC Inc. (100%)
     - HEC International Corporation (100%)
     - HEC Energy Consulting Canada, Inc. (100%)
     - Southwest HEC Energy Services L.L.C. (100%)
No. 00-5069.

#### Hardin *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Charles E. Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Transpro, Inc.;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant'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; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: October 8, 2004                      /s/ Charles E. Johnson
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Charles E. Johnson
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 17, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00652

- CV

Ruben RIOS

,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017W0521

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

In the underlying cause, Ruben Rios filed a petition for expunction, which sought

expunction of all criminal records and files pertaining to an arrest. On July 21, 2017, the trial

co urt signed an order granting Rios relief and ordering the expunction of all criminal records and

files related to the arrest. On August 18, 2017, the Depar tment of Public Safety filed a motion for

new trial. On October 3, 2017, the trial court signed an order granting the Department’s motion

for new trial and setting aside its prior expunction. Rios then filed a notice of appeal stating his

intent to appeal from the trial court’ s October 3, 2017 order.

“An order granting a new trial is an unappealable, interlocutory order.” Fruehauf Corp. v.

Carrillo , 848 S.W.2d 83 , 84 (Tex. 1993); see also Cummins v. Paisan Constr. Co. , 682 S.W.2d

235, 236 (Tex. 1984). We t herefore ORDER appellant to show cause in writing by September 3,

2018, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          25,541
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,720
<ALLOWANCES>                                       265
<INVENTORY>                                      3,002
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,143
<PP&E>                                         135,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,211
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,540
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,226
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,920
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    59
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,538
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,231
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
        

</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: June 13, 2011 Meeting with Industries C oncerned with Implementation of the
2011 NHSM Final Rule

FROM: Tab Tesnau Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329

Industries interested in forest s products and other fuels met w ith Suzanne Rudzinski, ORCR Director; June 13, 2011 to discuss their issues and concerns w ith the final rule entitled, “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Ma terials That are Solid Waste,” which was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15456). Th is is referred to as the
2011 NHSM Final Rule.

The industry participants discusse d the fuel constituent data and their difficulty in implementing the contaminant comparisons in the legitim acy criteria assessment in the 2011 NHSM Final
Rule.

During that meeting, the industry representatives expressed concer ns with the implementation of the legitimacy criteria assessments. EPA aske d clarifying questions regarding the information presented. EPA discussed the method to implem ent the analysis per the 2011 NHSM Final Rule.

Attachments: The Industry representatives shared a handout titl ed “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That are Solid Waste; Final Rule ( 40 CFR Part 241) Implications For Forest Product Industry Fuels.” Additional background data:
- Forest Products NHSM Data 6-9-11 - NCASI Statistical Analysis of Bo iler MACT Fuels Data from March 2009 - NHSM Fuel Contaminant Analysis Mill Assessment 4-11Expected Meeting Attendees Representatives from:
AF&PA American Home Furnishings Alliance
API
Biomass Power Association Composite Panel Association
Construction Materials Recycling Association National Oil Recycling Association
Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
USWAG
Treated Wood Council International Paper

Invited EPA participants: Suzanne Rudzinski, EPA ORCR, Office Director James Berlow, EPA ORCR, Division Director Tracy Atagi, EPA, ORCR Kenneth Dixon, EPA, ORCR George Faison, EPA ORCR Mimi Guernica, EPA, ORCR Charlotte Mooney, EPA, ORCR MaryBeth Sheridan, EPA, ORCR Matt Straus, EPA, OSWER Tab Tesnau, EPA, ORCR Marc Thomas, EPA, ORCR
eae
Hi
a}9 y i °
1, 7 q
U Bt’ aa Aes |
f 210) con Wa
le ’ i
a i uy |
Ce || if ny
bal Bow
] Pal 1,
E/E i ie
ae
| a PAW? as RaES
a an
it de Gy ne
r ac ah AZ| He | ehsonethe { ! | ARE
Tog oe ERE |
it 1 aaalld 2 Foe VE |e Zz i |
ew dsl ab pee 7 ULE
ery Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.
mS huaiied Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

+
iS
foe

ae

)

be be Bs

S|

i a i pi
; i LZ | i |
Hi bi Lagi ue LT
aed 9 Pa
ALP ll Govt
ka a ZAP aS |
is Lhe! |Z | eee | ae?
FB 7 7 4
Se OE “Bi
‘ eters || AZ, | Yobena? i: Ma. !
ne J ii} Alon Bin ib Z Te
21 9@ ; 2 rf Zz \ Lily | Ly
Val Lee eee? { ee!
ie et. 9.) 4 H SL Uh
LEEkG i 1 VAwd i aT HS
a4 Ne ii 3 3 5
i i
7 4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4300

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES ERVIN LADSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (3:04-cr-01142-JFA-1)

Submitted: April 27, 2007 Decided: May 8, 2007

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. Michael Duncan, AUSTIN, LEWIS & ROGERS, P.A., Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States

Attorney, Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United State Attorney,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*Upon the record before us it is not entirely clear as to

whether the statements at issue were made by the same or two

different co-conspirators. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Charles Ervin Ladson was found guilty by a jury of

conspiracy to commit an offense or to defraud the United States

(bank fraud) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1344 (2000). He was

sentenced to forty-one months of imprisonment within his calculated

advisory sentencing range under the federal Sentencing Guidelines.

On appeal, Ladson argues: (1) that the district court erroneously

allowed testimony from his co-Defendants regarding statements made

by an unindicted co-conspirator*

 and (2) that his sentence is

unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

First, we find no abuse of discretion in the district

court’s decision to admit the statements at issue into evidence

under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). United States v. Blevins, 960

F.2d 1252, 1255-56 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating standard). Second, we

find that the district court’s sentence, imposed within the

advisory sentencing range and after considering the factors in 18

U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), was reasonable.

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006)

(stating that a sentence within proper advisory Guidelines range is

presumptively reasonable); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449,

456 (4th Cir.) (noting a court must calculate the advisory

Guidelines range and then consider whether that range serves the
- 3 -

factors set forth in § 3553(a)), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309

(2006).

Accordingly, we affirm Ladson’s conviction and sentence.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented 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 UNION
PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATMENT OF FINANCIAL
POSITION AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATAED STATEMENT
OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      327
<ALLOWANCES>                                        10
<INVENTORY>                                         53
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   565
<PP&E>                                          11,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              733
<BONDS>                                          2,966
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              033
<PREFERRED>                                      0,966
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,358
<SALES>                                          1,161
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,265
<CGS>                                            0,161
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0,143
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (5)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (83)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 78
<DISCONTINUED>                                     133
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       211
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .85


</TABLE>
#### MIAMI SPRINGS VILLAS, INC., Petitioner, v. WINDOWMASTER CORP., Respondent.

No. 41302.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 21, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 247 So.2d 800.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Albert DOTSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-300.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 12, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### John B. LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3380.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1971.

J. Nilas Young of Young & Burson, Eunice, for plaintiff-appellant.

Frugé & Foret by Jack C. Frugé, Ville Platte, for defendant-appellee.

Before HOOD, MILLER and DO-MENGEAUX, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

The discussion to be found in the companion case of Gary Don Vidrine v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, La.App., 247 So.2d 660 decided on this date is applicable to and controlling of this case.

Accordingly, for the reasons assigned therein, the judgment of the trial court in the instant case is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

Affirmed.