alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38689-38690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16822]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-47-003]


NextEra Desert Center Blythe, LLC v. California Independent 
System Operator Corporation: Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 31, 2018, NextEra Desert Center Blythe, 
LLC on behalf of itself, Southern California Edison Company, and 
California Independent System Operator Corporation submitted an offer 
of settlement intended to resolve all issues in the above-captioned 
proceeding.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed

[[Page 38690]]

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d4b485f4e4263616463685e787d7d627f794d6b687f6e236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="591f1c0b1a16373530373c0a2c2929362b2d193f3c2b3a773e362f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 21, 2018.

    Dated: July 31, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16822 Filed 8-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Table 4.  Estimates of the Total Housing Inventory for the

                United States:  Fourth Quarter 2003 and 2004



(Estimates are in thousands and may not add to total, due to rounding)





                                    Fourth    Fourth         90-Percent

                                   quarter   quarter Confidence Interval<font size="-1">(+/-)</font><sup>a</sup>   2004

Type                                 2003      2004    of 2004       of          Percent

                                   estimate  estimate  estimate  difference      of total



All housing units.................  121,415   122,740       353        500       100



  Occupied........................  105,858   107,546       373        528        88

    Owner occupied................   72,650    74,413       376        531        61

    Renter occupied...............   33,208    33,133       297        420        27



  Vacant..........................   15,557    15,194       213        303        12

    Year-round vacant.............   11,807    11,675       189        268        10

      For rent....................    3,809     3,731       109        155         3

      For sale only...............    1,331     1,375        67         94         1

      Rented or sold,

      awaiting occupancy..........    1,013       901        54         79         1

      Held off market.............    5,654     5,668       134        189         5

        For occasional use........    1,964     1,916        79        112         2

        Temporarily occupied

        by persons with

        usual residence elsewhere.      951     1,152        61         83         1

        For other reasons.........    2,739     2,600        92        131         2



    Seasonal vacant...............    3,750     3,519       106        153         3



    a\A 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.

NOTE:  The Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey (CPS/HVS) estimates are 

now controlled to independent housing unit estimates.  This should make the CPS/HVS 

estimate of housing units more  comparable to other Census Bureau housing surveys.
Exhibit 12.3

ORANGE AND ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES  RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  TWELVE MONTHS ENDED  (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

DECEMBER
1997

DECEMBER
1998

DECEMBER
1999

DECEMBER
2000

DECEMBER
2001EarningsNet Income

$
45,138

$
44,968

$
14,726

$
39,069

$
40,182Federal Income & State Tax


22,684


24,877


40,101


24,654


25,937Total Earnings Before Federal and State Income Tax


67,822


69,845


54,827


63,723


66,119Fixed Charges*


35,779


36,973


35,454


27,141


26,373Total Earnings Before Federal and State Income Tax and Fixed Charges

$
103,601

$
106,818

$
90,281

$
90,864

$
92,492* Fixed ChargesInterest on Long-Term Debt

$
23,216

$
23,867

$
26,326


21,873


21,855Amortization of Debt Discount, Premium and Expense


1,521


1,138


1,208


1,060


994Interest Component on lease Payment


2,809


2,505


2,583


1,257


1,305Other Interest


8,233


9,463


5,337


2,951


3,213Total Fixed Charges

$
35,779

$
36,973

$
35,454

$
27,141

$
26,373Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


2.90


2.89


2.55


3.35


3.51


---

QuickLinks
Appe.c~l JJumbe.r ; I~- Ls- 003So -Ge 

Trial Numbt..r: 007-oqol-f:S 

Stafe.. of Texa ~ 

v. 

Davon On~y I Grave..~ 

1:..rt The.. I ·;x 't~ f)/~ff'ic.f Cour-1-

0t Cr/minal Appe.al! ot the. 

.Stat~ of Te..xas 

1 o th((.. Honora hie. ::::5 udges: cl-fhe.. Court of Gdmina I Appe.als ~ 

Com e..s: naw Davon Otl ~yl Gra11 e~, {) pplic.ant in -fh~ abtJve.- ~nfii-Jed a11d flumbe.re.d 

C.ctu.se. J afld r~pe.c.,+Fu!Jy movu fhir Gou~f- pursuclt11- fo Jexas. Rule. -oF Appe.llafc: PrtJce.okrn: 

7~,J fo eranf le.ave. io file. fhe. OLCOrtlranyil'lCj lafc.. t"c..Spon.te.. 

~e.spe.c+f ufly submifle.dt 

8" f2/VrJ7l- ~ .J!i.ll.dAJe11. 

OatJon On e..y I Grave..s: 

Bradshaw .Sfafc.. 3ai I 

Po &ox qooo 

He.11der-so11 1 Tx 75{,5 3 

ACCEPTED

12-13-00350-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEAL

TYLER, TEXAS

1/11/2015 2:47:02 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 1/11/2015 2:47:02 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
Ce..rf,'f.·c..o+c... of S.Q~I'r.JJt:..e.. 

j_ \ D o.von One..yl Grave-s. 1 d o he-re.by C..e,rhfy thaf a +rue. and c.orre.cf copy ot the. 

App/, c..ant's. M o+tofl for- Lea vi!.. -1-c ~~ fo_ La+'"' t:~pon.ic_ 1 hal be_e..l"l forwarde-d by Un,-lc.rl S..fafu 

.... . ~~ . MD , I, po ta9 e- prc.po,·cJ. 'hr.s+ c. leu-r) fo fhi!.. JJ. L.ourf o~ Cr,mlllal Appwf.s 111 

Tyl e c T e-xa.s 1 on fh ,.s. fhQ.. g•" Jay ot :)anuary J J.O 15. 

cf:YQN-o-n_ rYmu;- ~ 

Davon Onayl Grave1 

TOe~ No · J$/9!f8'3J 

Uni t : fSro ~hwJ Sfa+e- "Ja i I 

7c.>..os. Dc.p(lrirne.n+ of t:rirnlflcd 3u~t/ c.o_ 

PO Box 9ooo 

Hcnd<!.r S()n J T exa.s. 7 S ~ S" ~
# C_2012055EN.01000201.xml

| 24.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 February 2012

2012/C 55/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3300 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 106,72 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4374 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84610 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8175 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2053 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,4710 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,075 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 289,50 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6985 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1803 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3583 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3460 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2430 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3259 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3151 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5933 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6707 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 501,33 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,2261 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,3787 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5800 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 051,58 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0113 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,893 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,3600 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,339 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2648 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9869 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,3700 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3300

JPY

Japanese yen

106,72

DKK

Danish krone

7,4374

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84610

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8175

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2053

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,4710

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,075

HUF

Hungarian forint

289,50

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6985

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1803

RON

Romanian leu

4,3583

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3460

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2430

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3259

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3151

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5933

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6707

KRW

South Korean won

1 501,33

ZAR

South African rand

10,2261

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,3787

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5800

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 051,58

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0113

PHP

Philippine peso

56,893

RUB

Russian rouble

39,3600

THB

Thai baht

40,339

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2648

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9869

INR

Indian rupee

65,3700

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           2,576
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,567
<ALLOWANCES>                                       848
<INVENTORY>                                      2,833
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,285
<PP&E>                                         438,445
<DEPRECIATION>                                  75,721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 432,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,449
<BONDS>                                        162,868
<COMMON>                                         8,495
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,069
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   432,084
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,773
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (400)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,952
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,720
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,417
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,303
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Monte
      B. Tobin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      Mach
      One Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of Mach One Corporation.





Date:
                November 24, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Monte B. TobinMonte
              B. Tobin , Chief Executive Officer





I,
      Monte
      B. Tobin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      Mach
      One Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of Mach One Corporation.





Date:
                November 24, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Monte B. TobinMonte
              B. Tobin, Chief Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

KASEY NICOLE TODI, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1574 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed November 21, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Charles E. Roberts, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Timothy J. Ferreri, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00694-CV

Joseph Martinez, Appellant

v.

Samantha Renee Garcia, Appellee

FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-FM-13-005776, THE HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant’s brief was originally due on December 2, 2019. On December 11, 2019,

this Court sent a notice to appellant informing him that his brief was overdue and that a failure to 

file a satisfactory response by January 2, 2020, would result in the dismissal of his appeal for 

want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: January 24, 2020
EXHIBIT (23)

                   INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
CPI Corp.:


     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statement No. 33-50082 on Form S-8 of CPI Corp. of our report
dated April 3, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of CPI Corp. and subsidiaries as of February 1, 1997 and February
3, 1996 and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
fiscal years in the three-year period ended February 1, 1997, and
all related schedules, which report appears in the 1996 annual
report on Form 10-K of CPI Corp.






/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
-------------------------
    KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP





St. Louis, Missouri
April 3, 1997












                              26
*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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 98-41590

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PATRICK BOUVIER WASHINGTON, 

Defendant - Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:98-CR-11-ALL)

_________________________________________________________________

July 19, 1999

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick Bouvier Washington appeals his sentence, following a

guilty-plea conviction for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(a).

First, Washington contests his U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 obstruction of

justice enhancement, a factual finding we review only for clear

error. E.g., United States v. Upton, 91 F.3d 677, 687 (5th Cir.

1996). We find none, given Washington’s refusal to provide a

handwriting exemplar even in the face of a grand-jury subpoena and

court order. Other circuits have found such refusal to constitute

§ 3C1.1 obstruction of justice. See United States v. Valdez, 16

F.3d 1324, 1335 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 810 (1994);
- 2 -

United States v. Ruth, 65 F.3d 599, 608 (7th Cir. 1995); United

States v. Reyes, 908 F.2d 281, 290 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,

499 U.S. 908 (1991); United States v. Taylor, 88 F.3d 938, 943-44

(11th Cir. 1996); cf. Upton, 91 F.3d at 688 (refusal under grand

jury subpoena to produce business records warrants § 3C1.1

enhancement).

Second, Washington challenges the denial of a § 3E1.1

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, a determination reviewed

“even more deferential[ly] than a pure ‘clearly erroneous’

standard”, United States v. Gonzales, 19 F.3d 982, 983 (5th Cir.

1994), and on which the defendant has the burden of proof, United

States v. Tremelling, 43 F.3d 148, 152 (5th Cir. 1995). We find no

reversible error, given Washington’s obstruction of justice,

failure to plead guilty until a jury was impaneled, and denial of

relevant conduct described in his Presentence Report. See § 3E1.1,

application note 4 (obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 normally

shows lack of acceptance of responsibility); id., application note

3 (guilty pleas prior to trial show acceptance of responsibility,

and failure to admit relevant conduct shows lack of acceptance).

AFFIRMED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 23

- 00143

- CV

Gary W. BURK and Courtney W. Burk,

Appellants

v.

STEVEN C. GARDNER AGENCY OF HOUSTON, LLC and Steven C. Gardner,

Individually,

Appellees

From the 451st Judicial District Court

, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22

- 232

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Beth Watkins , Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 14, 2023

DISMISSED

Appellant s ha ve filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion contains a certificate of

service to appellee, who has not opposed the motion. T herefore, we grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant s

. See id.

R. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
# C_2012189EN.01000102.xml

| 29.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6469 — Tognum/TMH)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 189/02

On 21 June 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6469. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6469. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Clara BRYANT v. SWARTS.

No. 39267.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
#### FRANK J. ROONEY, INC., Appellant, v. Edwin J. TILTON, Sr., et al., Appellees.

No. 1664.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

May 31, 1968.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; O. Edgar Williams. Tr.. Judge

Appeal dismissed.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate [dentifier: 2010-N1\tl-071-AD

Costs:

Labor per airplane (up to 6 work hours x S85/hour)

Parts per airplane

Cost per airplane

Number ofU.S.-rcgistered airplanes

Total fleet cost

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

$ 510

$ + ---.2

$ 126

x -.fil

up to $M12Q

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES () explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)