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


<ARTICLE>                     UT

<LEGEND>                      The schedule contains summary financial
                              information extracted from Consolidated
                              Balance Sheet, Income Statement and Statement of
                              Cash Flows for Consolidated  Edison Company of
                              New York, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety
                              by reference to such financial statements
                              and the notes thereto.

</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000023632
<NAME> Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                               <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-END>                      Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-Mos

<BOOK-VALUE>                      Per-Book

<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>         10,606,909

<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>       324,208

<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>            1,378,071

<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>          1,372,964

<OTHER-ASSETS>                         0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    13,682,152

<COMMON>                          588,720

<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>         857,535

<RETAINED-EARNINGS>               3,887,993

<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>    4,393,771

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             37,050

<PREFERRED>                       212,563

<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>              4,243,080

<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                    0

<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>             0

<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>        0

<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>     275,000

<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>              0

<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>       34,406

<LEASES-CURRENT>                  2,656

<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>    4,483,626

<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>     13,682,152

<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>         6,956,015

<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>              394,147

<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>        5,560,353

<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>        5,954,500

<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>           1,001,515

<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                31,174

<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>    1,032,689

<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>          320,846

<NET-INCOME>                      711,843

<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>       13,593

<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>     698,250

<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>          1,327,786

<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>         305,261

<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>            1,306,915

<EPS-BASIC>                          0

<EPS-DILUTED>                          0


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 21-3068, 21-3205 & 21-3243

PJM POWER PROVISERS GROUP,

 Petitioner in 21-3068

v.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION,

 Petitioner in 21-3205

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION; 

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO,

 Petitioners in 21-3243

(Agency No. ER21-2582-000)

To: Clerk

 Motion by Intervenor Respondent Buckeye Power Inc to Amend 

 Opinion dated December 1, 2023.

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion is granted at the direction of the Court. The opinion will be 

amended contemporaneously with this order. As the changes to the opinion are clerical 

in nature, the judgment is unaffected and remains as originally filed.

For the Court,

Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk

Dated: January 24, 2024

kr/cc: All Counsel of Record
#### Brian Valot et al., Appellants, v Forest Hills Country Club Corp. et al., Respondents.

[736 NYS2d 606]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated April 27, 2001, as denied that branch of their motion which was to compel the defendants to provide certain discovery.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the defendants to provide certain discovery is granted.

The plaintiffs properly demonstrated that the discovery items they requested were material and necessary to the prosecution of the action *(see, Liverano v Devinsky,*278 AD2d 386; *Radon Constr. Corp. v Alcon Constr. Corp.,*277 AD2d 368). The Supreme Court therefore erred in denying that branch of their motion which was to compel the defendants to provide the discovery. Smith, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Adams and Prudenti, JJ., concur.
#### James Marvin STEELMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-938.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 13, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,684
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      734
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (241)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          28,064
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,575)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         17,516
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,757
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,464
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,095
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,929
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    600
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    253
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       853
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1
       (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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(c)
    
    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 the report based on such evaluation;
and(d)
    
    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 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  (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: May 7, 2010
    /s/ PETER J. UNGAROPeter J. UngaroPresident and Chief Executive Officer
p

y 

, 

USEPA REGION 9

75 Hawthorne Street

Mail Code: AIR-i

San Francisco, CA 94105

On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Submittal

Dear Mr. Flaber:

Per your request, the District staff is submitting an emissions inventory for on-road

mobile sources to U.S. EPA in order to address the requirements of CAA section

1 82(d)(1)(A) for the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air

Basin. CAA section 182(d)(i)(A) requires that 1-hour SIPs for severe and above areasshould demonstrate that emissions from motor vehiclesdecline each year through 2010,

or include Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) to offset emission increases. Based.

on the mobile source inventory developed for the 2003 AQMP, the following table

demonstrates that from 2003 to 2010, the emissions for VOC and NOx from on-road

mobile sources declined. The emissions presented in this table do not assumeimplementation of any mobile source measures included in the 2003 AQMP.

On-road Mobile Source Emissions

(Planning Inventory)

VOC NOx Year (tpd) (tpd)

2003 312 609

2004 291 581

2005 270 553

2006 261 536

2007 247 505

2008 234 475

2009 222 — 444

2010 210 414

* Source: Appendix 111, 200 AQMP, except for 2004 and 2009 which were estimated

by interpolation
2 - flaber Matt 2008 10, September -

at me contact please submittal, this regarding questions any have you If 396-3186. (909)

Sincerely,

/.

/ DrPH Chang, Elaine

Officer Executive Deputy

Sources Area and Development, Rule Planning,

EC:EE

SCAQMD Wallerstein, Barry cc:

SCAQMD Baird, Barbara
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wntteb**~tate1)** 

# <!Courtof**~eaI1)** 

# for tl)ejf 

# eberaI <!Ctrrott

UNITED STATES,



### Plaintiff·Appellee, 

### v. MARVIN A. DUKES, Defendant.Appellant.

2011·1513 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in case no. 1O·CR·0078, Judge Danny C. Reeves.
Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, 

### Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 

### ORDER The court considers whether this appeal should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction. Marvin A. Dukes appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in this criminal matter. Dukes filed his notice of appeal in the district court that expressly sought reo view by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In· stead, the district court transmitted the notice of appealUSv.DUKES 2 to this court. This court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction, which does not include criminal cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1295. The court notes that upon docketing, Marvin's appeal was transmitted to the Sixth Circuit, docketed by that court, and is proceedingbefore that court. Accordingly, 

### IT Is ORDERED

### THAT: (1) The appealis dismissed. (2) Each side shallbearits own costs.



## SEP 02 2011 Date

cc: AnthonyJ. Bracke, Esq. Marvin A. Dukes s19 FORTHE COURT
/s/ JanHorbaly JanHorbaly. Clerk

Fllli::J U.S. COIl;rrOFAPPEALS FOR THE FEDERAl. CIRCUIT 

### SEP 02 2011

JANHDRBALY 

### ClERK
No. 11439.

#### McElroy *v.*The Pennsylvania Co. et al.

Decided December 23, 1909.

Error to. Circuit Court of Jefferson county.

*Mr. P. P. Lewis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Carey & Mullins;*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Davis, Shaucic and Price, JJ., concur.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DATCARD SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PACSGEAR, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-1445

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 10-CV-1288, Senior 

Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

PAUL A. STEWART, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, 

LLP, of Irvine, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

With him on the brief was CRAIG S. SUMMERS. 

WILLMORE F. HOLBROW, III, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & 

Zafman LLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were DENNIS G.

MARTIN and JAMES AHN. 

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

January 16, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
113447-1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE, ex rel. ) JOHN JAY HOOKER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 01A01-9606-CH-00259 ) BROOK THOMPSON, et al. , ) ) Appellees, ) ) ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ex rel. ) LEWIS LASKA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 01A01-9606-CH-00280 ) BROOK THOMPSON, et al. , ) ) Appellees, ) ) ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ex rel. ) LEWIS LASKA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 01S01-9606-CH-00114 ) BROOK THOMPSON, et al. , ) ) Appellees. )

_____________

______________________________________________ ________

_ ORDER

__________________

______________________________________________ ___ _ The m at ters currently pendin g before this Court are a Pe tition to Rehear filed byAppellant Hooker, Appellees' Motion for Clarifica tion and Appellees' Motion to Supplementthe Record fil ed by the Attorney General, Petition on behalf of Holly K. Lillard and Jerry L. Smith to Int ervene f or the Limited Purpose of Respondi ng to Appellees' Motion for Clarification,Petition for Rehearing and M otion to Supplement the Record filed by appellant Laska, Appellees' Petition to Rehear filed by the Attorney General and Motion of Penny J. White to Intervene.113447-1 2 The Court has considered these matters and it is ORDERED: 1. With the exception of Appellees' M otion for Clarificati on, a ll of the aforementioned motions and pet itions are DENIED. 2. In response to Appellees' Moti on for Clarification, the eq uitable relief granted in this matter is limited to the case sub judice , involving the el ection for the vacancyon the Supreme Court bench resulting from the resignation of Justice O' Brien, which vacancy has been filled in the interim by Justice Penny White. No equitab le relief granted in this Court's orders of July 5, 8, and 9 shall apply to the int ermediate appellate court judges, who ar e not parties to this action, and this Court's order of July 5, 1996 at page 3, paragraph 3, is clarified and amended by deleting the wor ds "and all other similarly si

tuated incumbent a pp ellate judges who have declared their candidacy prior to Ma

y 16, 1996". ENTERED this 10th day of Jul y, 1996.

___________

___________________ _________

_ WILLIAM H. D. FONES, CHIEF JUSTICE

__________

____________________ __________ MARTHA S. L. BLACK, JUSTICE

_______________________________________ LIN S. HOWARD, JUSTICE

_____________________________________ A. C. WHARTON, JR., JUSTICE

_________________________________ S. MORRIS HADDEN, JUSTICE
No. 11695.

#### Erie Railroad Co., et al. *v.*Cunningham.

Decided November 16, 1909.

*519Error to Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

*Messrs. Hiñe; Kennedy & Manchester,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. George E. Rose*and *Mr. M. A. Morris,*for defendant in error. '

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.
#### Ronald E. REWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-214.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 3, 1969.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner .Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of Wade v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 459; Cayson v. Hassfurder, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 811; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 675 and Chavigny v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 163 So.2d 47.

HOBSON, C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
#### Albert Edwin PATTERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-397.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 23, 1973.

Louis 0. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Thomas C. Turner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.,

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. McPhee v. State (Fla.App.1971), 254 So.2d 406; State v. Anderson (Fla.1973), 270 So.2d 353.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TRANSPRO,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,802
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,002
<INVENTORY>                                     85,129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,966
<PP&E>                                          78,926
<DEPRECIATION>                                (52,436)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,270
<BONDS>                                         39,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,694
<SALES>                                        102,269
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,269
<CGS>                                           78,743
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   173
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,762)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,124)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,638)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   6,442
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,804
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73


</TABLE>
#### EMPLOYERS’ SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Gunter SCHWARZBART et al., Respondents.

No. 72-1106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 14, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
voluntary dismissal of this appeal. Cause appearing, we grant the motion 

and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.' 

cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Ini Friday Odong 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'Because no remittitur will issue in this matter, see NRAP 42(b), the 

one-year period for filing a post-conviction habeas corpus petition under 

NRS 34.726(1) shall commence to run from the date of this order. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                          26,983
<SECURITIES>                                    96,700
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,687
<INVENTORY>                                        746
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,904
<PP&E>                                          34,334
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,208
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 180,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,950
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           154
<OTHER-SE>                                     133,039
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   180,252
<SALES>                                         79,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               134,907
<CGS>                                           19,355
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                79,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,123
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,305
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,520
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,785
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,785
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.86


</TABLE>