alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com [mailto:thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com] 

Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 11:15 AM 

To: Richard Parker 

Cc: Meyers, Aaron; Andrew Delaski; Ali Ghafourian (aghafourian@ermco-eci.com); Alex Hofmann; Aris 

Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Matt Miller; Robert Berman; Brian Coffey; Hirsch, Bruce R; Bruce Smith; Chris 

Bolduc; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Charlie Drexler; Simmons, Chuck; Silcox, Clark; Charlie Stevens; 

Dan Cohen; Millure, Dave; Dave Brender (dbrender@cda.copper.org); Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Gary 

Fernstrom; Greg Rosenquist; Greg Coulter; James Lass; jay.ballard@schneider-electric.com; Jennifer 

Tiedeman; Freeman, Jeremiah; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Schoen; Jerry Hodge; Creevy, Jim; Joanna Mauer; 

John Cymbalsky; Caskey, John; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Kenneth.Harden@schneider-electric.com; 

Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Meg Waltner; Ned 

Brush (Ned.efbrush@gmail.com); Ryan, Paul; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Puesh Kumar; Polinski, 

Raymond; Rob Greeson; Rick Anderson; (rjstahara@centralmoloneyinc.com); Bob Saint; Robert van 

Buskirk; Robin Roy; Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Steve Nizinski; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; 

Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: LVDT Working Group - Loading RMS values 

LVDT Working Group. 

There has been a number of comments on the Loading of the transformers. The data below would only 

address a way to determine the loading for low voltage transformers with existing data. 

My experience putts the loading between 10-15% RMS for LVDT units 

By taking end-use-split for site electricity and the hourly loading data used for the current RMS data, we 

can obtain a curve for LVDT that matches my experience. That being the case I suggest that the data for LVDT loading be multiplied by 50% and 57% and then regraphed using 20,000 data points instead of 10,000 to determine the Loading for LVDT units. 

Thomas Patzner | Low Voltage Transformers | Square D / Schneider Electric 

1010 Airpark Center Drive | Nashville, TN 37217 |  Office: 615-844-8536 |  Five Digit Dialing: 48536  e-mail: thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com |  Website: www.us.squared.com/EEXFMR Low Voltage Transformer Technical Support  e-mail: lvgp-marketing@us.schneider-electric.com 

 Please consider the environment before printing this email
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 4A(1)

                INDENTURES OF CONSOLIDATED NATURAL GAS COMPANY
                ----------------------------------------------


The Indentures, Supplemental Indentures and Securities Resolutions between
Consolidated Natural Gas Company and its debenture Trustees, as listed below,
are incorporated by reference to material previously filed with the Commission
as indicated:

    Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company (now The Chase Manhattan Bank)
       Indenture dated as of May 1, 1971 (Exhibit (5) to Certificate of
          Notification at Commission File No. 70-5012)
       Eleventh Supplemental Indenture thereto dated as of December 1, 1986
          (Exhibit (5) to Certificate of Notification at Commission File No.
          70-7079)
       Thirteenth Supplemental Indenture thereto dated as of February 1, 1989
          (Exhibit (5) to Certificate of Notification at Commission File No.
          70-7336)
       Fourteenth Supplemental Indenture thereto dated as of June 1, 1989
          (Exhibit (5) to Certificate of Notification at Commission File No.
          70-7336)
       Fifteenth Supplemental Indenture thereto dated as of October 1, 1989
          (Exhibit (5) to Certificate of Notification at Commission File No.
          70-7651)
       Sixteenth Supplemental Indenture thereto dated as of October 1, 1992
          (Exhibit (4) to Certificate of Notification at Commission File No.
          70-7651)
       Seventeenth Supplemental Indenture thereto dated as of August 1, 1993
          (Exhibit (4) to Certificate of Notification at Commission File No.
          70-8167)
       Eighteenth Supplemental Indenture thereto dated as of December 1, 1993
          (Exhibit (4) to Certificate of Notification at Commission File No.
          70-8167)

    United States Trust Company of New York
       Indenture dated as of April 1, 1995 (Exhibit (4) to Certificate of
          Notification at Commission File No. 70-8107)

    Securities Resolution No. 1 effective as of April 12, 1995 (Exhibit 2 to
       Form 8-A filed April 21, 1995 under file No. 1-3196 and relating to the
       7 3/8% Debentures Due April 1, 2005)

    Securities Resolution No. 2 effective as of October 16, 1996 (Exhibit 2 to
       Form 8-A filed October 18, 1996 under file No. 1-3196 and relating to the
       6 7/8% Debentures Due October 15, 2026)

    Securities Resolution No. 3 effective as of December 10, 1996 (Exhibit 2 to
       Form 8-A filed December 12, 1996 under file No. 1-3196 and relating to
       the 6 5/8% Debentures Due December 1, 2008)

    The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association)
       Indenture dated as of December 15, 1990 (Exhibit (4A)(1) to Consolidated
          Natural Gas Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1990,
          File No. 1-3196)
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 54524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending August 13, 
2011

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0146.
    Date Filed: August 9, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PTC COMP Mail Vote 679, Resolution 024d, Currency Names, 
Codes, Rounding Units and Acceptability of Currencies--Jordan, Intended 
Effective Date: 1 June 2011.
    (Memo 1622), PTC COMP Mail Vote 679, Resolution 024d, Currency 
Names, Codes, Rounding Units and Acceptability of Currencies--Jordan, 
Intended Effective Date: 1 June 2011, Implementation Date: 1 August 
2011.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0147.
    Date Filed: August 9, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PTC COMP Mail Vote 680, Resolution 024a, Establishing 
Passenger Fares and Related Charges, Lithuania, Intended Effective 
Date: 1 September 2011.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-22397 Filed 8-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
260 La. 399

#### Lillie KNIGHTEN v. Henry RUFFIN et al.

No. 52026.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1972.

In re: Henry Ruffin applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 255 So.2d 388.

Writ denied: The result is correct. See also La.C.C.P. Art. 2893.

SUMMERS, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted.

BARHAM, J., concurs in the denial of the writ and assigns written reasons.

BARHAM, Justice

(concurring in the denial of the application).

This application presented a most interesting and important question which is res nova. The conference was in the majority of the firm opinion that the legal basis of the Court of Appeal’s decision was erroneous. We were also firmly convinced that the result reached was correct under another theory of law. To have granted the writ to this applicant, when we were so convinced that we would not grant him any relief, would have been of no benefit to him and would have occasioned him considerable additional expense. Moreover, at this time our docket is badly congested because of the number of writs we have been grant*289ing in combination with the volume of appeals in cases where we have appellate jurisdiction.

I therefore concur in the denial of the writ, being of the opinion we would merely have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal under Code of Civil Procedure Article 2893. See comment under this article, and McMahon, The Revision of Probate Procedure in Louisiana, 1 No. 2 La. Bar J. 53, 66 (October, 1953).
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

PERSONNEL GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. AND AFFILIATES

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 Personnel Group of America,
Inc.(the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 29, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Larry L. Enterline, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies 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.

/s/ Larry L. Enterline
Larry L. Enterline
Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2002

31
#### James W. DAVIS v. PATENT SCAFFOLDING CO. et al.

No. 9317.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

April 24, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 31, 1973.

A. G. Seale and Ken Barnette, Seale, Smith, Phelps, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellants Pacific Signal Ins. Co. and Sky Climbers, Inc.

John I. Moore and Wm. L. Wilson, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees Travelers Ins. Co., Patent Scaffolding, and others.

H. Alva Brumfield, Jr., and H. Alva Brumfield, III, Baton Rouge for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS, and CRAIN, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

This case, which is consolidated with cases Nos. 9313, 9314, 9315, and 9316, involves the identical parties and issues as does Harris v. Patent Scaffolding Company *488et al., 277 So.2d 483 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1973), this day decided.

For reasons therein assigned, the judgment herein is affirmed, at appellants’ cost.

Affirmed.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the

case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 4/29/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

NELSON O. DUARTE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; J. MICHAEL QUINLAN, Director of FBOP; CLAIR CRIPE, General Counsel; CALVIN EDWARDS, Regional Director; GARY L. HENMAN, Warden; J. HARRELL, Associate Warden; E. R. PIERCE, SIS Lieutenant; E. W. GEOUGE, Discipline Hearing Officer, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-3380 (D. Kan.) (D.C. No. 93-CV-3369)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , BARRETTand MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this- 2 -

appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Nelson O. Duarte, a prison inmate, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on his civil rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In his complaint, Duarte alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by the actions of the defendants during a disciplinary investigation and hearing, following which plaintiff was found guilty of attempted escape. Construed liberally, Duarte alleged that (1) defendants falsely charged him with attempted escape, (2) he was a victim of a retaliatory transfer, (3) defendants refused to investigate his claim that confidential informants had set him up, (4) defendants falsified and withheld evidence, and (5) defendants deprived him of good time credits. On appeal, Duarte asserts that the district court failed to consider the facts in the light most favorable to him as the nonmoving party and that there are material issues of fact in dispute which preclude the district court’s grant of summary judgment. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and apply the same legal standard used by the district court under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Eaton v. Jarvis Prods. Corp. , 965 F.2d 922, 925 (10th Cir. 1992). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).- 3 -

Upon careful consideration of the record on appeal, the pleadings, and the parties arguments, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum and Order dated November 3, 1995. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is hereby AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
August 3 , 2015

Mr. Gabriel Alvarez

Aerial Vision Services, LLC

4790 N. Powerline Road

Pompano Beach , FL 33073

Dear Mr. Alvarez :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your M ay 15 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 1733 ), but

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further,

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the publ ic interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information desc ribed

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
November , 2014 

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer, Chief, EAS Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

- i ... _ · .. _ 

Re: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cordova, Gustavus, 

Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat, Alaska, Docket OST-1998-4899 

Dear Mr. Schlemmer : 

This letter is to express strong support for the selection of Alaska Airlines to continue to 

provide essential air service to our community. 

Alaska's service connects Southeast Alaska passengers to one or more major 

communities of interest, with single-plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan or 

Seattle. From these hubs, our community can access the airline's extensive route 

system and benefit from its marketing relationships with other carriers. The passenger 

and cargo aircraft, which Alaska Airlines proposes to continue using on this route, 

provides freight, mail and cargo capacity that other carriers simply cannot provide. 

Further, Alaska Airlines aircraft are equipped with Required Navigation Performance 

Technology, which enables the airline to reliably access the airport during inclement 

weather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in turn, enabling people and 

products to dependably reach the community. 

Simply put, Alaska Airlines' service is critical to the economic well being of our 

community and 11 support their application to provide Essential Air Service to Southeast 

Alaska. 

As a lodge owner we depend on being able to get our customers into Petersburg on 

regular scheduled flights. Without them we would not be able to exist. 

Sincerely, 

Robert & Deborah Bailey Alaska Sport Haven Lodge.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1569 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 211
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1569

  To ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the 
           United States Government until December 31, 2014.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 8, 2013

 Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. Baucus) introduced the following bill; 
                     which was read the first time

                            October 9, 2013

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the 
           United States Government until December 31, 2014.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Default Prevention Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. ENSURING TIMELY PAYMENT.

    Section 2 of the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013 (31 U.S.C. 3101 
note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``date of the enactment of this Act'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``date of enactment of the 
        Default Prevention Act of 2013'';
            (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``May 18, 2013'' and 
        inserting ``December 31, 2014''; and
            (3) in subsection (b), by striking ``May 19, 2013'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``January 1, 2015''.
                                                       Calendar No. 211

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1569

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the 
           United States Government until December 31, 2014.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 9, 2013

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
#### John E. DUNBAR, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-512.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 18, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Charles O. BEARD, Appellant, v. James L. BRYANT, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Louise Hibbard Beard, Deceased, Appellee.

No. T-245.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 23, 1973.

Paul L. Cummings, Pensacola, for appellant.

James D. Swearingen, Pensacola, for ap-pellee.

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 order of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

RAWLS,, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2





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 Coates International, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Barry C. Kaye, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, as of the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, the Company’s Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: August 13, 2010
By:
/s/ Barry C. KayeBarry C. KayeTreasurer, Chief Financial Officerand Principal Financial Officer
Order entered August 2, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00274-CV

MUHAMMAD ASIM SHAMIM AND HAFSA ASIM, Appellants

V.

CANTERA OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-06638-2019

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s July 20, 2021 motion to dismiss the appeal 

because appellants have failed to file their brief by July 19, 2021. By order dated 

July 20, 2021, we granted appellants an extension of time to file their brief to 

August 23, 2021. Accordingly, we DENY appellee’s motion as moot.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
#### William Lawrence HOPKINS v. Dorothy Louise HOPKINS.

No. 50305.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 26, 1978.

Reid & Hewitt, Gertrude A. Reid, Biloxi, for appellant.

Larry L. Lenoir, Gulfport, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR CLARIFICATION.

SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and COFER, JJ., concur.