alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 11.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit, for the United States and Regions:

           Second Quarter 2006 and 2007



(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)





                                                   Second Quarter 2006



Type of housing unit

                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West

                                           States     east      West



All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100



    Year-round vacant....................      9.8       8.0       9.5      11.9       8.2

      For rent...........................      2.9       2.3       3.6       3.2       2.3

      For sale only......................      1.4       1.0       1.5       1.6       1.2

      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.9       0.8       0.9       1.1       0.9

      Held off market....................      4.6       4.0       3.5       6.0       3.8

        For occasional use...............      1.5       0.9       0.8       2.0       1.7

        Temporarily occupied by persons

        with usual residence elsewhere...      1.0       1.0       0.8       1.2       0.7

        For other reasons................      2.2       2.2       1.9       2.8       1.4



    Seasonal vacant......................      3.2       4.1       2.6       3.1       3.0



    Occupied.............................     87.0      87.8      87.8      85.1      88.8







                                                   Second Quarter 2007





                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West

                                           States     east      West



All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100



    Year-round vacant....................     10.2       8.6       9.8      12.3       8.4

      For rent...........................      2.9       2.4       3.1       3.4       2.3

      For sale only......................      1.6       1.1       1.7       1.9       1.3

      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.9       0.9       0.9       1.0       0.9

      Held off market....................      4.8       4.1       4.0       6.0       4.0

        For occasional use...............      1.6       1.0       0.9       2.2       1.9

        Temporarily occupied by persons

        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.9       0.9       0.7       1.0       0.7

        For other reasons................      2.3       2.2       2.4       2.8       1.4



    Seasonal vacant......................      3.4       4.1       2.8       3.5       3.3



    Occupied.............................     86.4      87.3      87.4      84.2      88.3
#### Evelyn T. SANSON, Appellant, v. J. M. FLOWERS, as Executor of the Estate of Dwight O. Nay, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 71-822.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 30, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Billy Joe KEMP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-262.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Charles H. Livingston, and Elliott C. Met-calfe, Jr., Asst. Public Defenders, Sarasota, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Guy E. LaBalme, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and HOBSON and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Sherman PHILLIPS et al. v. J. G. DUPLANTIS et al.

No. 61506.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: Sherman Phillips and Jeanne Phillips, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Terrebonne. 353 So.2d 335.

Writ denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
#### Patricia Ann CADE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-697.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 18, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
GRETF Meet ing with EPA

June 11, 2013, 11:00 am

Discussion of EPA comments on GRETF protocol and study timing.

List of Participants

Name Organization

1. Janelle Kay Pyxis Regulatory Consulting

2. Dave Olson United Phosphorus Inc

3. Steve Bedosky Arcadis

4. Leanne Pruett Pyxis

5. Alexa Fraser Westat

6. David Marker Westat

7. Matt Brooks ACC for LG Life Science

8. Jim Rothman Paley Rothman

9. Andy Newcombe Arcadis

10. Kelly Lowe OPP/HED

11. Dana Friedman OPP /PRD

12. Monica Wait (by phone) OPP/PRD

13. Cathryn Britton OPP/PRD

14. Matthew Crowley OPP/HED
September 14 , 2016

Exemption No. 11067D

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2014

– 0357

Mr. Chris White

Pictorvision Inc.

2320 Shasta Way, Unit H

Simi Valley, CA 93065

Dear Mr. White :

This letter is to inform you that we have g ranted your petition to extend Exemption No.

11067C . It explains the basis for our decision , desc ribes its effect, and lists the conditions and

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated August 2 , 2016 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Pictorvision Inc. (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an extension to your current

exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a),

61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and

(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Re gulations (14 CFR) allows the

petitioner to operate a UAS to perform closed

- set motion picture and television filming.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register beca use the requested extension of the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any del ay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11067

, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefor e, under the2

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the

Administrator, the operator is granted an extension to its exemption.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitati ons

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11067 remain in effect. The

termination date has been updated

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on September 30, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
SCPW-19-0000432

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

FRANCIS P. GRANDINETTI, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ( CR. NO. 93-0141)

O RDER DENYING PETITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

On December 18, 2019, petitioner Francis P. Grandinetti filed a document entitled, “On Petition, SC-HI: Supervisory Writs, Mandamus, Injunctions, and/or Governor’s Stay”. The document was filed as a petition. Upon consideration of the document and the record,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied. Petitioner should seek the assistance of his recently-appointed counsel, the Office of the Public Defender, who was appointed by the third circuit court in Cr. No. 93-0141.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 7, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-19-0000432 07-JAN-2020 02:07 PM
The Connecticut Light and Power CompanyExhibit 12Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges(Thousands of Dollars)For the Years Ended December 31,20092008200720062005Earnings, as defined:Net income$216,316$191,158$133,564$200,007$94,845Income tax expense/(benefit)118,84777,85252,353(43,961)32,174Equity in (earnings)/losses of regional nucleargenerating companies(282)(366)(1,901)854(1,153)Dividends received from regional equity investees1,520-2,5961,407412Fixed charges, as below163,887165,170155,557131,923133,321Less: Interest capitalized (including AFUDC)(2,203)(12,991)(10,924)(6,610)(6,719)Total earnings, as defined$498,085$420,823$331,245$283,620$252,880Fixed charges, as defined:Interest on long-term debt (a)$133,422$104,954$84,292$64,873$59,019Interest on rate reduction bonds19,06129,12937,72846,69255,796Other interest (b)3,33412,16316,4136,2815,220Rental interest factor5,8675,9336,2007,4676,567Interest capitalized (including AFUDC)2,20312,99110,9246,6106,719Total fixed charges, as defined$163,887$165,170$155,557$131,923$133,321Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges3.042.552.132.151.90(a)
Interest on long-term debt amounts include amortized premiums, discounts and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness.(b)
For the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, other interest includes interest related to accounting for uncertain tax positions.
Table 4.  Estimates of the Total Housing Inventory for the
                United States:  Third Quarter 2002r and 2003

(Estimates are in thousands and may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                    Third     Third    Standard
                                   quarter   quarter   error on  Standard     2003
Type                                2002r      2003      2003    error on   Percent
                                   estimate  estimate  estimate difference  of total

All housing units.................  119,491   121,030       216        307       100

  Occupied........................  105,157   105,499       228        322        87
    Owner occupied................   71,465    72,178       228        322        60
    Renter occupied...............   33,692    33,321       181        256        28

  Vacant..........................   14,334    15,531       131        182        13
    Year-round vacant.............   10,711    11,796       115        160        10
      For rent....................    3,364     3,713        66         92         3
      For sale only...............    1,214     1,411        41         56         1
      Rented or sold,
      awaiting occupancy..........      886     1,072        36         49         1
      Held off market.............    5,247     5,600        81        113         5
        For occasional use........    1,786     1,951        48         67         2
        Temporarily occupied
        by persons with
        usual residence elsewhere.      968       950        34         48         1
        For other reasons.........    2,493     2,699        57         79         2

    Seasonal vacant...............    3,623     3,735        66         93         3
rRevised
NOTE:  The Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancies and Homeownership (CPS/HVS) estimates are now controlled to independent housing unit counts.  This should make the CPS/HVS counts of housing units more comparable to other Census Bureau housing surveys.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF  TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of California Independent Bancorp, a California corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Form10-Q") that, to the best of their knowledge,



|                      |  |                                                                                                                
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 8, 2003 |  | /s/JOHN I. JELAVICHJohn I. Jelavich President and Chief Executive
Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)        
|Dated: August 8, 2003 |  | /s/KEVIN R. WATSONKevin R. Watson Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary
(Principal Financial Officer)

32

---

QuickLinks
NO. 07-09-0091-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

APRIL 24, 2009

______________________________

ALTON ARMSTRONG, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 50,712-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND

On March 16, 2009, appellant, Alton Armstrong, filed a notice of appeal from a

judgment entered by the 251 District Court of Potter County, Texas, in cause number st

50,712-C. In this notice, appellant requests the trial court relieve his appointed counsel

from continuing to represent appellant on appeal and to appoint new appellate counsel.

On this basis, we now abate and remand this cause.

Upon remand, the judge of the trial court is directed to immediately cause notice to

be given of and to conduct a hearing to determine: (1) whether appellant desires to
2

prosecute this appeal; (2) if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, whether appellant

is indigent; (3) if appellant is indigent, whether appellant is being adequately represented

on appeal by trial counsel; (4) if appellant is indigent and not being adequately

represented, whether appellant should be appointed new appellate counsel; and (5) what

orders, if any, should be entered to assure the filing of appropriate notices and

documentation to dismiss appellant’s appeal if appellant does not desire to prosecute this

appeal. If the trial court determines that new counsel should be allowed to represent

appellant on appeal, the court should cause the clerk of this court to be furnished the

name, address, and State Bar of Texas identification number of the newly-appointed or

newly-retained attorney. 

The trial court is directed to: (1) conduct any necessary hearings; (2) make and file

appropriate findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations and cause them to

be included in a supplemental clerk’s record; (3) cause the hearing proceedings to be

transcribed and included in a supplemental reporter’s record; (4) have a record of the

proceedings made to the extent any of the proceedings are not included in the

supplemental clerk’s record or the supplemental reporter’s record; and (5) cause the

records of the proceedings to be sent to this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(3). In the

absence of a request for extension of time from the trial court, the supplemental clerk’s

record, supplemental reporter’s record, and any additional proceeding records, including

any orders, findings, conclusions, and recommendations, are to be sent so as to be

received by the clerk of this court not later than May 26, 2009. 

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Date 4/8/11 Page of 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Summary Page 

Updated based on Post-Focus Draft Revision1, 4/5/2011, 

Test Data Review Engineering Report. 

Chemical ID: P-11-0107 Reviewer: Kwon 

Endpoints-Assessed Table 

Endpoints/Assessment 

Cycles1

Releases 

Assessed 

in 

NCEM2? 

Reasons for not assessing releases 

No XB 

Testing 

Required 

No 

Hazard 

Concern 

No 

Releases 

Release 

Below 

Acute 

Threshold5

Release 

Below 

Chronic 

Threshold5

Other 

Ingestion 

 Surface water 

 Ground water (landfill) 

 Consumer Use: DtD2

Inhalation 

 Air: incineration (stack) 

 Air: fugitive 

 Consumer Use: CEM3

Dermal 

 Consumer Use: CEM 

Eco 

 Surface water: ADR 

conc and/or PDM4

 Consumer Use: DtD

1

Assessment cycles are endpoint concentrations and dose calculations within the NCEM2 model. 2

Down-the-Drain 

3

Consumer Exposure Model 

4

Probabilistic Dilution Model 

5

The threshold values for assessing endpoints are 1 mg/day for acute doses and 1 mg/year for chronic doses. 

EAB DROP: Release information for this compound does not meet criteria for preparation of an exposure 

assessment in the Exposure Assessment Branch=s (EAB) Initial Review Exposure Report (this report). 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 1
#### SPUN-CRETE PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellants, v. ABBOTT-JORDAN HOIST COMPANY, a foreign corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-341.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 18, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/09/2010 08:39 PM

-----

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Cc: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter

Nagelhout/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael |

|Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|08/09/2010 05:17 PM

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|revised SI RICE NESHAP preamble/reg

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

Cortney,

Attached is the revised preamble/reg that includes additional language

discussed during the call today. As requested I'm also attaching a

redline/strikeout against what was initially sent to OMB.

(See attached file: Final SI RICE NESHAP Preamble-Reg 8-9-10 afternoon

redline.doc)(See attached file: Final SI RICE NESHAP Preamble-Reg 8-9-10

afternoon.doc)

Melanie King

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

Mail Code D243-01

RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-2469

Fax: (919) 541-5450

king.melanie@epa.gov
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Fourth Quarter 2001 and 2000




                                    Fourth     Fourth     Standard    Standard
Area                                quarter    quarter    error on    error on
                                     2001       2000     2001 rate  difference

United States.....................      68.0       67.5        0.2         0.2

  Inside MAs......................      66.4       65.7        0.2         0.3
   In central cities..............      52.2       51.7        0.3         0.5
   Not in central cities (suburbs)      74.8       74.2        0.2         0.3
  Outside MAs.....................      74.9       75.1        0.4         0.5

 Northeast........................      64.0       63.2        0.4         0.6
 Midwest..........................      73.5       73.1        0.4         0.5
 South............................      70.1       69.8        0.3         0.4
 West.............................      62.3       61.6        0.4         0.5
#### Lenora DOCKERY, Administratrix of Estate of James Edward Dockery, Deceased v. LeDEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., American Development Corporation and Noble Crigler.

No. 50398.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 26, 1978.

Dulaney & Dulaney, William P. Dulaney, Tunica, for appellant.

Sullivan, Smith, Hunt & Vickery, Elzy J. Smith, Jr., Luckett, Luckett, Luckett & Thompson, William 0. Luckett, Sr., Clarks-dale, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and SUGG and COFER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and WALKER, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.