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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             830
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,271
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     12,024
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,579
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        110,694
<ALLOWANCE>                                        914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,828
<DEPOSITS>                                      88,323
<SHORT-TERM>                                    21,700
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,421
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,130
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 132,828
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,765
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  762
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    42
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,569
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,972
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,854
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,715
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       72
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   6
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,896
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,896
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,224
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.08
<LOANS-NON>                                        642
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   796
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        4
<RECOVERIES>                                        50
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  914
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### John M. GAINES, etc., et al., Appellants, v. LEONE-DUNCAN CORP. et al., Appellees.

No. 73-20.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 2, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Table 4.  Estimates of the Total Housing Inventory for the
                United States:  Third Quarter 2004 and 2005

(Estimates are in thousands and may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                    Third     Third          90-Percent
                                   quarter   quarter   Confidence Interval      2005
Type                                 2004      2005    of 2005       of       Percent
                                   estimate  estimate  estimate  difference  of total

All housing units.................  122,373   124,119       (X)        (X)       100

  Occupied........................  106,870   108,431       330        301        87
    Owner occupied................   73,772    74,588       631        432        60
    Renter occupied...............   33,098    33,843       536        413        27

  Vacant..........................   15,503    15,688       351        311        13
    Year-round vacant.............   11,848    11,854       343        297        10
      For rent....................    3,798     3,773       172        193         3
      For sale only...............    1,321     1,481        92        113         1
      Rented or sold,
      awaiting occupancy..........    1,050     1,191        75        103         1
      Held off market.............    5,679     5,409       239        210         4
        For occasional use........    1,955     1,799       140        124         1
        Temporarily occupied
        by persons with
        usual residence elsewhere.    1,026     1,020       106         92         1
        For other reasons.........    2,698     2,590       167        147         2

    Seasonal vacant...............    3,655     3,834       225        195         3
    aA 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliability.  The larger the 
confidence interval is, in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.
         (X)  Not Applicable.  Since the number of housing units is set equal to an independent national 
measure, there is no sampling error, and hence no confidence interval.
NOTE:  Since first quarter 2003, the Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey (CPS/HVS) estimates 
have been controlled to independent housing unit counts.  Doing so should make the CPS/HVS estimate of housing 
units more comparable to other Census Bureau housing surveys.
Exhibit 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                     |                       
|---------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------
|                                                     | State of
Incorporation
|Northeast Utilities (a Massachusetts business trust) | MA                    
|The Connecticut Light and Power Company              | CT                    
|CL&P Funding LLC                                     | DE                    
|CL&P Receivables Corporation                         | CT                    
|Holyoke Water Power Company                          | MA                    
|Holyoke Power and Electric Company                   | MA                    
|North Atlantic Energy Corporation                    | NH                    
|North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation            | NH                    
|Northeast Nuclear Energy Company                     | CT                    
|Northeast Utilities Service Company                  | CT                    
|NU Enterprises, Inc.                                 | CT                    
|Select Energy Services, Inc.                         | MA                    
|Select Energy Contracting, Inc.                      | MA                    
|Mode 1 Communications, Inc.                          | CT                    
|Northeast Generation Company                         | CT                    
|Northeast Generation Services Company                | CT                    
|E. S. Boulos Company                                 | CT                    
|Woods Electrical Co., Inc.                           | CT                    
|Select Energy, Inc.                                  | CT                    
|Select Energy New York, Inc.                         | DE                    
|Public Service Company of New Hampshire              | NH                    
|PSNH Funding LLC                                     | DE                    
|PSNH Funding LLC 2                                   | DE                    
|The Quinnehtuk Company                               | MA                    
|The Rocky River Realty Company                       | CT                    
|Western Massachusetts Electric Company               | MA                    
|WMECO Funding LLC                                    | DE                    
|Yankee Energy System, Inc.                           | CT                    
|Yankee Gas Services Company                          | CT
EXHIBIT 32.2





NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.





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 Annual Report of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10- K for the fiscal year ended March 25, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John F. McGrath, Jr., Vice President and Chief 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, 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.



June 2, 2005



/s/ JOHN F. MCGRATH, JR.

John F. McGrath, Jr.

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Order filed, March 26, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00118

- CR

____________ AHMAD PEYRAVI , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. 919251



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due March 11, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the repor ter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Pam Knobloch , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
LSP-WHITEWATER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 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>                                           6,479
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,053
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,209
<PP&E>                                           8,769
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 299,677
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,111
<BONDS>                                        174,879
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   299,677
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,327
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,041
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,184
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,184
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,184
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### David P. STRAUB and Carolyn E. Bock, Appellants, v. Daisy May CLARK, Appellee.

No. 70-471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 29, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 16, 1971.

Wallis E. Schulle, of Fisher, Prior, Pruitt & Schulle, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Cecil H. Albury, of Heuer & Albury, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied plaintiff purchaser’s petition for specific performance of a contract pertaining to the sale of realty. We affirm.

“The rule in Florida is settled that in a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of real property, a plaintiff must do more than prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to some relief. He must prove the contract as alleged in his complaint by competent and satisfactory proof which must be clear, definite and certain.” Tumulty v. Severdija, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 837, 839. See also 29A Fla.Jur., Specific Performance, §§ 69-72.

Here the trial court decision is supported by evidence that the written contract was silent and vendor had no knowledge of the FHA point discount system which would require her to pay same for the vendee’s mortgage and thereby diminish her entitlement to the purchase price of $13,750.00 by approximately. $800.00. We believe that this lack and uncertainty was of such magnitude that it may not be overlooked according to any theory of custom and usage or agency.

*764No abuse of discretion or departure from the essential requirements of law having been demonstrated the judgment on appeal is

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2   CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned, Steven M Caspers, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative, (the Company), does hereby certify that to his knowledge:  1.     The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2.     Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 14th day of July, 2010.  By:
     /s/ STEVEN M CASPERSName: Steven M CaspersTitle: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
  A signed original 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.


---
#### J. Russell HORNSBY, Appellant, v. Barbara B. HORNSBY, Appellee.

No. 71-346.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 15, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; Volie A. Williams, Jr., Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 4.2



 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated October 26, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2145 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-267773) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


October 26, 2022
Table 7.  Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:  Second Quarter:  2006 and 2007

         (in percent)

                                    90-percent

                   Second   Second  confidence    90-percent confidence

Age of householder Quarter  Quarter interval (&plusmn;)a interval (&plusmn;)a

                    2006     2007   of 2007 rate  of difference



United States.....    68.7     68.2      0.5           0.4



    Under 25 years    24.5     23.6      1.5           1.4

    25 to 29 years    41.4     41.7      1.4           1.4

    30 to 34 years    55.6     54.6      1.4           1.4

    35 to 39 years    66.3     65.1      1.3           1.2

    40 to 44 years    71.3     69.9      1.2           1.1

    45 to 49 years    75.0     74.4      1.1           1.2

    50 to 54 years    77.8     76.7      1.1           1.2

    55 to 59 years    81.1     80.1      0.8           0.8

    60 to 64 years    80.9     81.3      0.9           0.9

    65 to 69 years    82.2     82.1      1.4           1.2

    70 to 74 years    81.9     82.1      1.5           1.4

    75 years and over 79.2     78.9      1.1           1.0



    Under 35 years    42.4     41.9      0.9           0.8

    35 to 44 years    68.9     67.6      0.9           0.8

    45 to 54 years    76.3     75.5      0.8           0.8

    55 to 64 years    81.0     80.6      0.6           0.6

    65 years and over 80.6     80.5      0.8           0.7

aA 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliablilty.  

The larger the confidence interval is, in relation to the size of the estimate,

the less reliable the estimate.
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10467

MD RICHARD FRANKLIN

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION; ET AL

Defendants

BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY

Defendant - Appellee

Consolidated with

No. 05-10602

MD RICHARD FRANKLIN

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION; ET AL

Defendants

BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth

USDC No. 4:03-CV-228-BE

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

Before KING, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
No. 

-2-

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5

th Cir. R. 47.6.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 16, 2010

1209 

# Order

December 16, 2010

140990 & (41)

MIDWEST BUS CORPORATION, f/k/a MIDWEST BUS REBUILDERS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 140990 COA: 288686 Ct of Claims: 06-000095-MT DEPARTMENT OF TR EASURY and STATE TREASURER, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The application fo r leave to appeal the Marc h 16, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DE NIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.

D AVIS , J., not participating. I recuse myse lf and am not participating because I was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

**** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****

The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Reed et al., Appellants, v. City of Miamisburg, Appellee. [Cite as Reed v. Miamisburg (1994), Ohio St.3d .] Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. (No. 93-1910 -- Submitted November 29, 1994 -- Decided December 30, 1994.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County,

No. 13446.

Susco, Hecht & Derose Co., L.P.A., and David P. Hecht, for appellants. Jenks, Surdky & Cowdrey Co., L.P.A., Robert F. Cowdrey and Arden Lynn Achenberg, for appellee.

The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed. Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents. Pfeifer, J., dissenting. I would not have dismissed this case as having been improvidently allowed, but would have heard the case on its merits. I would then have applied to this case my analysis of sovereign immunity as discussed in my concurrence in Garrett v. Sandusky (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 139, 141, 624 N.E.2d 704, 706.
#### GRIFFITH RANCH, INC., Appellant, v. H. E. CULLISON, Jr., and A-Bar-B Ranch, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-188.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 26, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Okeechobee County; James E. Alderman, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
RegulatoryEvaluationDocketNo.FAA-2015-3805Directorateldenti'fier:2015-NE-28-ADJfyoumakechm1}{eStothevaluesinthetahlehe/ow,youmusten.\'1/rethetotalsupdateIftheydonot,click(orTah)infoondthenoutofthechangedcell.EstimatedCosts:ActionCostsperProduct(e.g.,aircraft,engine,(e.g.,Inspection,propeller,appliance)Work-hoursLaborPartsCostTotalCostsNumberofTotalCostreplacement)(includecost(labor+u.s.forU.S.FleetDonotincludeonconditioncostshereaccess,testing,(@$85/hparts)Registeredandclose-up).our)ProductsInspection1.0300Removal1.060'"..·•'''"''Theknownnumberofproductsincompliance:TotalCostsofcomplianceforU.S.fleet:$30,600Costscoveredunderwarranty(ffknown)$On-ConditionCosts:ActionWork-hoursLaborcostPartsCostCostperProduct(e.g.,Inspection,(includeaccess,(@$85/hour)replacement)testing,andclose-up)SpecialconsiderationsforEconomicAnalysis(UsethisfieldtoexplainanythingintheEstimatedCoststablethatwasassumedormightnotbeobvious.Thisfieldcanalsobeusedtoexplainwarrantycosts):ExecutiveOrder12866:CouldtheADbeconsidereda"significantregulatoryaction"?--YES*0NO[2J*Explanation:DOTRegulatoryPoliciesandProcedures:IstheADsignificant?YES*0NO[2J*Explanation:RegulatoryFlexibilityAct:WilltheADhaveasignificanteconomicimpactonasubstantialnumberofsmallentities?ExplainforeitheraYesorNoYES0NO[2JExplanation:ThisADisnotconsideredtobe"significant"IntrastateAviationinAlaska:ThisADcouldaffectintrastateaviationinAlaska.IsitappropriatetoincludespecificrequirementsforaircraftoperatedinAlaskawhereaviationmightbetheonlymodeoftransportation?·-YES*0NO[2J*Explanation:
#### William Michael LYDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 72-632, 72-633.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.