alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 10.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit for the United States and for Inside and Outside 
           MA's:  Fourth Quarter 1994 and 1993 
                                                                           
 (Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding) 


                                           Fourth quarter 1994         Fourth quarter 1993r 
                                   
                                     
                                         United   Inside  Outside    United   Inside  Outside 
                                         States      MAs      MAs    States      MAs      MAs 
                                                                  
All housing units........................   100      100      100       100      100      100
                                                                                
   Year-round vacant.....................   8.4      7.8     10.1       8.0      7.5      9.3
     For rent............................   2.6      2.7      2.1       2.4      2.6      1.6
     For sale only.......................   1.0      0.9      1.1       0.8      0.8      0.8
     Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..   0.7      0.7      0.6       0.6      0.6      0.5
     Held off market.....................   4.2      3.5      6.2       4.2      3.5      6.4
       For occasional use................   1.5      1.1      2.6       1.4      0.9      2.9
       Temporarily occupied by persons       
       with usual residence elsewhere....   0.7      0.7      0.8       0.9      0.9      1.1 
       For other reasons.................   2.0      1.8      2.8       1.9      1.8      2.4
                                                                    
   Seasonal vacant.......................   2.5      1.2      6.5       2.7      1.1      7.8 
                                                               
   Occupied..............................  89.1     90.9     83.4      89.3     91.4     82.9
                                                                   
 r Revised.          
 Note:  The metropolitan/nonmetropolitan data are now comparable to earlier data; 
        see page 4 for explanation.                                    

Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Exhibit 21.1


                            Consolidated Edison, Inc.

                                  Subsidiaries


1.    Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.("Con Edison of New York"), a
      New  York  corporation,  all of the  common  stock  of  which  is owned by
      Consolidated Edison, Inc.
      ("Con Edison").

 2.   Orange  and  Rockland  Utilities,  Inc.("O&R")  , a New York  corporation,
      wholly-owned  by Con Edison,  and O&R's  subsidiaries:  Rockland  Electric
      Company, a New Jersey corporation,  and Pike County Light & Power Company,
      a Pennsylvania corporation, each of which is wholly-owned by O&R.

Neither  Con  Edison,  Con  Edison  of New York  nor O&R  have  any  significant
subsidiaries  other than as  indicated  above.  Pursuant  to Item 601(b) (21) of
Regulation S-K, the names of subsidiaries,  which considered in the aggregate as
a single subsidiary, would not constitute a "significant subsidiary" (as defined
under Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X) as of December 31, 1999 have been omitted.
#### Thomas E. CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-113.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 2, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
889 A.2d 1026

#### David LOWERY a/k/a Eddie Jahmal Lowery v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 116,

Sept. Term, 2005.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 11, 2006.

*515Stacy W. McCormick, Asst. Public Defender (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender), Baltimore, for Petitioner.

Shannon E. Avery, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. of MD), Baltimore, for Respondent.

Submitted before: BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA and GREENE, JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER

The Court having considered and granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in the above captioned case, it is this 11th day of January, 2006,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, vacated, and the case is remanded to that Court for reconsideration in light of *Stanley v. State,*390 Md. 175, 887 A.2d 1078 (2005). Costs in this Court and in the Court of Special Appeals to be paid by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City.
Table 20.  Homeownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity of Householder:  1994 to 1998



Race              1994 Standard   1995 Standard   1996 Standard   1997 Standard   1998 Standard
                          error           error           error           error           error

U.S. total..............  64.0      0.1   64.7      0.1   65.4      0.1   65.7      0.1   66.3      0.1

  White, total..........  67.7      0.1   68.7      0.1   69.1      0.1   69.3      0.1   70.0      0.1
    White, nonhispanic..  70.0      0.1   70.9      0.1   71.7      0.1   72.0      0.1   72.6      0.1
  Black, total..........  42.3      0.3   42.7      0.3   44.1      0.3   44.8      0.3   45.6      0.3
  Other race, total.....  47.7      0.5   47.2      0.5   51.0      0.5   52.5      0.6   53.0      0.6


  Hispanic..............  41.2      0.4   42.0      0.4   42.8      0.4   43.3      0.4   44.7      0.4
  Non-Hispanic..........  65.9      0.1   66.7      0.1   67.4      0.1   67.8      0.1   68.3      0.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau
#### Willie Cecil SMOTHERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-215.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1974.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, James O. Brecher, Ronald B. Cosgrove, and Thomas C. Turner, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty: Gen., for appel-lee.

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. Williams v. State (Fla.1959), 110 So.2d 654; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; Ashley v. State (Fla.1972), 265 So.2d 685.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., SPECTOR, J., and CREWS, JOHN J., Associate Judge, concur.
No. 11145.

#### Shawver *v.*Wyscarver et al.

Decided November 9, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Guernsey county.

*Mr. J. S. LePage,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Rosamond & Bell*and *Messrs. Turnbaugh & Eagleson,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41308

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANNY ALMENGOR-REYNA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-404-1

Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Danny AlmengorReyna has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Almengor-Reyna has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41308 Document: 00513158670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2015
No. 14-41308

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-41308 Document: 00513158670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2015
VININGS INVESTMENT PROPERTIES TRUST
            SCHEDULE OF SUBSIDIARIES OF
                 December 31, 2000
                 -----------------


---------------------------------------------------------
                                         JURISDICTION OF
SUBSIDIARY                                ORGANIZATION
---------------------------------------------------------

Cottonwood, L.P.                             Delaware

Delta Bluff, L.P.                            Delaware

Foxgate, L.P.                                Delaware

Hampton House, L.P.                          Delaware

Heritage Place, L.P.                         Delaware

Northwood Place, L.P.                        Delaware

River Pointe L.P.                            Delaware

Thicket Apartments, L.P.                     Delaware

Thicket Holdings, Inc.                       Delaware

Trace Ridge, L.P.                            Delaware

Vinings Communities, L.P.                    Delaware

Vinings Holdings, Inc.                       Delaware

Vinings Investment Properties, L.P.          Delaware
Exhibit 32.1





AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, 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 quarterly report of AirTran Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Fornaro, President and Chief Executive Officer and Arne G. Haak, Senior Vice President of Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





April 22, 2010

By:

/s/ Robert L. FornaroRobert L. FornaroPresident and Chief Executive OfficerApril 22, 2010

By:

/s/ Arne G. HaakArne G. HaakSenior Vice President of Finance, Treasurer

and Chief Financial Officer
1 August!24,!2015

US!Department!of!Transportation Docket!Operations 1200!New!Jersey!Ave.,!SE West!Building!Ground!Floor,!Room!W12

K 140 Washington,!DC!20590

RE:!Request!for!Amendment!under!Section!333!of!the!FAA!Modernization and!Reform!Act!and!Part!11!of! the!Federal!Aviation!Regulations!for!Closed

K Set!Motion!Picture!and!Television!Filming Exemption!#!12516!FAA!Docket!No.!FAA

K 2015

K 1566

Dear!Sir!or!Madam:

FBAP!Inc. (FBAP) was!granted!exemption!under!Section!333!of!the!FAA!Mod ernization!and!Reform!Act! and!Part!11!of!the!Federal!Aviation!Regulations,!Exemption!No.!12516,!to!operate!unmanned!aircraft! system!(UAS)!to!conduct!aerial!photography!and!cinematography.!

FBAP requests!an!amendment!to!the!exemption!to!allow!for!UAS!opera tions!for!the!purpose!of!closed

K set! motion!picture!and!television!filming.! FBAP!would!not!set!precedent.!Exemption!#’s! 11062,!11063,! 11064,!11065,!11066,!11067,!and!11080 are!all!previously!granted!petitions!to!allow!operations!of!UASs! for!the!purpose!of!c losed

K set!motion!picture!and!television!filming.!

FBAP!Inc.!will!comply!with!the!following!conditions!and!limitations:

1. The!operator!will!have!a!motion!picture!and!television!operations!manual!(MPTOM)

2. At!least!3!days!before!aerial!filming,!the!operator!of the!UAS!will!submit!a!written!Plan!of!Activities! to!the!local!Flight!Standards!District!Office!(FSDO)!with!jurisdiction!over!the!area!of!proposed! filming.!The!3

K day!notification!may!be!waived!with!the!concurrence!of!the!FSDO.!The!plan!of!

Activities!must!i nclude!at!least!the!following:

a. Dates!and!times!for!all!flights;

b. Name!and!phone!number!of!the!operator!for!the!UAS!aerial!filming!conducted!under!this! grant!of!exemption;

c. Name!and!phone!number!of!the!person!responsible!for!the!on

K scene!operation!of!the!UAS;

d. Make,!model,!and!serial!or!N

K Number!of!the!UAS!to!be!used;

e. Name!and!certificate!number!of!UAS!PICs!involved!in!the!aerial!filming;

f. A!statement!that!the!operator!has!obtained!permission!from!property!owners!and/or!local! officials!to!conduct!the!filming!pro duction!event;!the!list!of!those!who!gave!permission!will! be!made!available!to!the!inspector!upon!request;

g. Signature!of!exemption!holder!or!representative;!and

h. A!description!of!the!flight!activity,!including!maps!or!diagrams!of!any!area,!city,!town,!

county ,!and/or!state!over!which!filming!will!be!conducted!and!the!altitudes!essential!to! accomplish!the!operation.! 

# Request!for!Amendment2 3. Flight!operations!may!be!conducted!closer!than!500!feet!from!participating!persons!consenting!to! be!involved!and!necessary!for!the!filming!product ion,!as!specified!in!the!exemption!holder’s!

MPTOM.!

FBAP!thanks!you!for!your!time!and!prompt!consideration!of!the!requested!amendment!for!Exemption!No.! 12516.!Please!do!not!hesitate!to!contact!FBAP!should!you!have!any!questions!or!should!you!require!any!

a dditional!information!to!support!the!request.!

Sincerely,

Thomas!M.!Hirschmann

FBAP!Inc.

699!Osceola!Ave. Winter!Park,!FL!32789

Email:! tom@flybyap.com

Phone:!407

K 280

K 3332
oe, DeLSTS curse topo emt tcc te Booms there tetera ee pre ee ew Sos a mate ee ee,

Biate j! t 2 Incorporated place é rt Bogen Wart ot city . fC Unincorporated place -— Sah etire sebi
tate _. . ‘ ‘ (Nese of uiitcarparntes place bavtag 300 ar ware lababaaata) SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1940
: Township or other

tieoatl ; syed ater ef pees S- Institution

Fae a asaiatina Gnd em oe ota eri ows POPULATION SCHEDULE

LOCATION | MOUSEHOKD DATA wAME pucartion | =UcATION| PLACE OF BIRTH

Mame of each person whooe aval place ‘ Fy WraneapS ees
‘his household. ee ee EH is see ree onan 4, betadetapead : Pets panees sowing work (Ton te Col. SED) (nd IT hee bewe
4 * n
g | eran vo mecxene Eee = | a ee re
2 teposrat
teeny be 0
corron mil
rated

{ Prtear wmpeeariy sheet trom hecanteld
Brus “Ad” after caniee of Hock pormens.

room. I wveneeh

Felted benin, i pwned. ot mepitily

dine

Sarees ahve than bear
Besant tne

Beas QC) ater nme! perme tarrcabing safsrematicn eee
ee

z Plan Mgt

Amnens of momen
‘slary teenived
rs

ae
a

7
Duals, Aalale
~_, Fh lla®

© | Sen—Bae (Mi, Foemaie
| CODE fies seat)
| Ching othe even tare

t

Pos
.
&

o isNe
ww
a

9

y

Wibrhe.:

Be tray llr, =

Ui fircunte rat ean nthe ee |
Erte,

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

NEF] o xe

sa

Lone —

Kaan 1

Arve

=

fh PAA Ah,

Tipit

T
i

ribs

plete colons
+

%
ae

SU ESiay
PARMAR phe 2 [ahh

t ta whe Se
ae eee

» bite Nam returt' Tal 1 fae) Hh | ; =f, bf Fol Za,
, Frarrdsnisy temaftA\ Af | jb | : ae i
eee Fit ean |E| Wl 2 fos | | 4 |
a Pg mated pend o— LW |S ] j | [
Memlima , arin &| Cw |. 37h 3 : aaa , | Balecoren/ <LI AT, &
= , Ka thsnens fe 4 4 le

_e | dat
— ’ Si a

> red Pima ! ae at | = |
j y A ( 5 P { =
pitino Yor! Kodtibno Yoke. | o | fe
SUPPLEMENTARY FOR PERSONS OF ALL aGES POR PERSONS 14 YEARS OLD AND OVER
se :
Fe DO, aserscictgont . 3 PLACE OF METS OF PATHEA AnD MOTUER Lapshioumat ri—- +? - arateiend UEUAL COCUPATION, INDOSIEY, AUD CLUS OF WOREXE

as let ths perce a0 Wis mes! acenpatine nl ot which be be
ec wah. Miche peruse is wuetie to Min case ine nrubetoess vaca be has rhe

‘eiucn be ia PRYRicaly able be work Rates alm avta! taCme-
i eel

egg gore ween Seetoes ork eapectenen, ext “Bane” te OA, @ wot Reve Ome, ont

|
Ga \fl Pol Nr z

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY—DO NOT WRITE IN THEDE COLUMNS

|
|
—|—

3

gE
Be
E|
&

salt

ee
“
a

el
‘ont aalede

— Soe
es el

| "ethomaiecees| 8

>

Z|

(Ce, mon. CLANS OF WORKEE
Col 4 MMUSET GLADE OF BOEOOL COMPLETED: ae 7:
PGE LAT . ler ewer

=

anD Riemeemary mel, atte Rh grat... 11 ae eB by to A ort
SLPLANATORT or te — igh el att Bh rata Bot A, Bt he.
wees Caltege, latte Gh pese__ 0-1, 04.04 ‘Wevking a wen emcee
(Caligs, 2 wr aubenqoans yoar oo ‘Wapat hats water
#### Efstathios John CATOGAS, Appellant, v. Simon H. BURR and Syjack Construction Company, jointly and severally, Appellees.

No. 70-22.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 3, 1970.

Seymour London, Miami, for appellant.

Benjamin R. Alter, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HEN-DRY, and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Gallucci v. Milavic, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 375.
#### Harry Lee BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-392.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth. District.

May 19, 1972.

*245Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

RICHARDSON, GEORGE, Jr.,

Associate Judge.

Appellant Bell was found guilty on April 15, 1971, by a jury of robbery and possession of a short barreled shotgun and was sentenced on March 16, 1971.

When appellant was arraigned, he pled not guilty to four counts as follows:

> 1. Conspiracy to commit a felony

> 2. Grand larceny

> 3. Possession of short barreled shotgun

> 4. Carrying concealed firearm.

On February 10, 1971, the appellant, with leave of court, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty as to count 1, conspiracy to commit a felony and attempted grand larceny, a lesser offense under count 2. On March 19, 1971, appellant Bell voluntarily filed a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas which after due consideration was granted by the court.

On March 24, 1971, a new information was filed in four counts as follows:

> 1. Conspiracy to commit a felony

> 2. Robbery

> 3. Possession of short barreled shotgun

> 4. Carrying concealed firearm,

and on March 29, 1971, appellant entered a plea of not guilty on each count. After conviction on counts 1 and 2 of the new information and denial of a motion for new trial, appellant brought this appeal based on four assignments of error.

Assignments 2, 3 and 4 are without merit, so they will not be discussed. However, assignment of error 1 which was as follows:

> “The trial court erred in permitting the defendant to stand trial on a higher charge than he pled to,”

raises the issue of double jeopardy.

The first time this defense has been raised by the appellant is on appeal and so the failure of the appellant to raise the issue of double jeopardy in the trial constitutes a waiver of that defense. Suiero v. State, 248 So.2d 219 (Fla.App.1971); Robinson v. State, 239 So.2d 282 (Fla.App.1970).

When the appellant withdrew his plea of guilty and it was accepted by the court, it was as if a plea had never been entered ab initio. To hold otherwise would cause the trial courts to be apprehensive of accepting or allowing the withdrawal of a plea because such discretionary action might prevent justice from being carried out.

As' Chief Justice Cardozo said, “But justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true.”

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
No. 00-7193.

#### Revere *v.*Foster, Governor of Louisiana, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Charles E. LEWIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1383.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 17, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CHECKFREE HOLDINGS CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          16,199
<SECURITIES>                                     9,425
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (4,096)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,330
<PP&E>                                         104,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (46,080)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,857
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           517
<OTHER-SE>                                     184,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,690
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               179,379
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  187,814
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,823)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (12,422)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,599
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,599
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

_____________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 5, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 134967(67) Justices 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 134967 

v COA: 269572 

Wayne CC: 05-000173-01

MICHAEL J. BORGNE,

Defendant-Appellee. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiff-appellant for extension 

to July 8, 2008 of the time for filing their brief and appendix is considered and it is 

GRANTED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

August 5, 2008 

 Clerk