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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,470,000
<SECURITIES>                                33,916,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  191,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,994,000
<PP&E>                                       4,954,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,741,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,237,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,992,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   117,486,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (77,730,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,237,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,237,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,625,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
January 19, 2006

26661

#### State v. Young

Vacated and Remanded
COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS — COUNTY OF THE BRONX — PART V.

September 21, 1922.

#### THE PEOPLE v. MEYER WOLINSKY.

Landlord and tenant — Penal Law, section 2040 — Failure to furnish AWNINGS.

The failure. to furnish awnings does not come within the ' *‘*other servicé" or facility at any time when the same are necessary to the proper or customary use of such building” as required by section 2040 of the Penal Law.

Before Justice John J. Freschi, presiding; Arthur C. Salmon and Moses Herrman.

*Cattano &*Gilman, for the defendant.

*Edward J. Glennon, District*Attorney, for People.

Demurrer to information, charging a violation of section 2040 of the Penal Law, on the ground that the allegations thereof do not constitute a crime.

Freschi, J.:

The statute (supra) under which this action is brought reads as follows:

“ Any lessor, agent, manager, superintendent or janitor of any building, or part thereof, the lease or rental agreement whereof by its terms, expressed or implied, requires the furnishing of hot or cold water, heat, light, power, elevator service, telephone service or any other service or facility to any occupant of said building, who wilfully or intentionally fails to *114furnish such water, heat, light, power, elevator service, telephone service or other service or facility at any time when the same are necessary to the proper or customary use of such building, or part thereof, or any lessor, agent, manager, superintendent or janitor who wilfully and intentionally interferes with the quiet enjoyment of the leased premises by such occupant, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

It is alleged in the information filed herein that between July 1 and'August 7, 1922, the defendant, as owner, lessor, agent, manager, superintendent and janitor of a building in ' the county of the Bronx, City of New York, who was required by the terms of a rental agreement, expressed or implied, did unlawfully and wilfully fail to furnish awnings necessary to the proper and customary use of such building, and interfering with the quiet enjoyment of the leased premises.

Does the failure to furnish awnings come within the purview of the statutory expression, “ other service or facility at any time when the same are necessary to the proper or customary use of such building ” ? My opinion is that such omission is not criminal. A strict construction limits the meaning of these words of the statute to the kind of service prescribed in the law, namely, “ water, heat, light, power, elevator service, telephone service ” or other service of a like kind and which serves to accomplish the same results and purposes.

I vote to sustain the demurrer.

Justices Salmon and Herrman also voted to sustain the demurrer.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply565Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Michael J Lill... (not verified)PermalinkJune 29, 2017 - 11:02amAnother great story of our Country, and not part of the history written for students in our schools.  Please send me more.  Thank You Mike
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
- 1

- Proposed Alternatives

The following option al alternative institutes a management practice rather t han numerical emission limit. The alternative defines testing and monitoring requirements for area source engines with catalytic control, and includes action levels that require operator response.

Catalyst Temperature and CO Monitoring of Catalyst Activi ty:

**•** Employ automated high temperature engine shutdown (based on the temperature limit in the rule) as parameter monitoring to prevent catalyst damage . Operator should have the option of installing continuous temperature monitoring in lieu of high temp shu tdown for those instances where critical operation makes an immediate shutdown undesirable and potentially
unsafe.

AND

**•** Monitoring based on an initial CO test and ongoing semi

- annual CO tests. The test would evaluate CO catalyst performance as part of a ma nagement practice using a portable analyzer method to verify “catalyst activity” . The CO tests would be s ingle test runs consisting of
exhaust sampling for a minimum of 15 minutes using portable methods includ ing state approved method ologie s, EPA CTM

- 034, and/or the ASTM D6522 portable analyzer
method s . Standard performance test methods would also be acceptable (i.e., in some cases that methodology may be available due to other stack tests occurring in the area for other rules or permit requirements ).

The “catalyst activity level” for each engine type is presented below, followed by a discussion of required operator response when CO testing indicates the catalyst activity level is not met.

- 4

- stroke lean burn (4S LB ) c atalyst activity assessment

– The meas ured CO level would be compared to a 47 ppmv (dry, 15% O 2 ) management practice catalyst activity level.

OR

- 4

- stroke rich burn (4S R B ) c atalyst activity assessment

– The measured CO percent reduction would be compared to a 75% 1

Catalyst Activity and Operator Actions : or higher management practice catalyst activity level. Pre

- and post

- catalyst measurements would be corrected to a common percent O 2 for calculating percent reduction. Sequential pre

- and post

- catalyst tests would be acceptable, but must be conducted as soon as practical while mainta ining engine operating conditions.

1 See attached vendor CO performance guarantee.- 2

- The actionable catalyst activity levels are presented above. If CO testing does not meet the “catalyst activity level” (47 ppmv CO for LB or 75% reduction for RB), then the engin e will be shut down as soon as safely possible until catalyst cleaning / replacement occurs. Once placed into service, the CO test will be conducted within 7 days to ensure that the catalyst activity level
is met.- 3

- Attachment

4SRB Catalyst Performance Gua rantee- 4

-
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply543Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  John H.Coker (not verified)PermalinkMarch 12, 2022 - 8:20pmAnyone hear of the ghost cat in the Catafalque store room? The Catafalque is the wooden stand that presidents and other dignitaries lie in state. It is very old, dating to Lincoln's time. Allegedly the howl of  cat is heard from the room. Watchmen who have opened to door to investigate are confronted by a pair of cat's eyes glowing in the dark!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
17997

#### Olson v. Coronel

Dismissed
Agricultural Marketing Service, Specialty Crops Program, Specialty Crops Inspection Division

This PATCH represents official guidance. This PATCH is scheduled to be incorporated into the 

document listed above. After incorporation into the document listed above this PATCH will 

become obsolete. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

PATCH # 045 Pistachio Test Samples for Aflatoxins (April 5, 2019)

SCI Division Inspection Series

Page 1 of 1

PATCH # 045

DOCUMENT: Pistachios in the Shell Shipping Point and Market Inspection Instructions, 

February 2005

REMARKS: The following paragraph replaces paragraph (d) on page 22 of the inspection 

instruction and includes instructions on mixing of product before submitting it to a USDA 

approved lab.

(d) Test samples for aflatoxin. After the sampling is completed, an inspector or under the 

supervision of an inspector, or as approved under an alternative USDA-recognized inspection 

program shall take the total of the required incremental samples collected from the lot and 

thoroughly mix them in a single container to achieve a single composite sample. Prior to 

submission of samples to a USDA accredited laboratory for aflatoxin analysis, one sample 

(“test sample”) shall be created from the pistachios designated for aflatoxin testing in 

compliance with Tables 1 and 2 for inshell and kernel pistachio lots that weigh up to and 

including 4,400 pounds. For lot sizes larger than 4,400 pounds, two samples (“test samples”) 

shall be created equally from the composite sample designated for aflatoxin testing in 

compliance with the requirements of Tables 1 and 2. Each sample is placed in a suitable 

container, with the lot number clearly identified. Each test sample has a SC-187, Notice of 

Sampling inserted in the film bag with the product and the cartons are sealed. The sample is 

then ready to be submitted to a USDA accredited laboratory.
San Luis Obispo County APCD 206-1 11/5/91

RULE 206. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL (Adopted 8/2/76; Revised 11/13/84 and 11/5/91)

The Air Pollution Control Officer may issue an Auth ority to Construct or Permit to Operate, subject to conditions which will insure the complia nce of any machine, article, equipment, or other contrivance within the standards of Rule 204, including, but not limited to, emission limits on an annual basis or any other appropriate period of time, in which case the conditions shall be specified in writing. Commencing operation under s uch a Permit to Operate shall be deemed acceptance of all conditions so specified. The Air Pollution Control Officer shall issue a Permit to Operate with revised conditions upon receipt of a new application, if the applicant demonstrates that the article, machine, equipment o r other contrivances can operate within the
standards of Rule 204 under the revised conditions. Construction or operation of any emission
unit in violation of the conditions of the Authorit y to Construct or Permit to Operate is prohibited
and shall constitute a violation of these District Rules and Regulations.
#### ANNMARIE KASLAITIS *v.*RICHARD J. KASLAITIS

(AC 19803)

Landau, Schaller and Spear, Js.

Submitted on briefs June 14

officially released July 18, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### H.E. Johnson Co., Inc. v. Emma Intern., Inc.

24448

08/26/2003

Affirmed
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Jaimel Demetrius Smith v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00365

- CR

Trial court case number: 1765558

Trial court: 208th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the above

- referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a motion requesting access to a copy of the appe llate record for use in preparing a response to appointed counsel’s brief. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 318

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

On December 20, 2022, this Court issued an order granting appellant’s motion and ordering

the trial court cl erk to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to the appellant within ten days of the date the order issued. We order the trial court clerk to certify to this Court within 15 days o f our order the date upon which delivery of the record to appellant was made. The trial court clerk has no t certified the date of delivery and appellant has notified this Court that he has not received a copy of the record. However, appellant does state th at he has been moved from the Holliday Unit back to the Lewis

Unit.

We order the trial court clerk to provide a copy of the record, as ordered on December 20, 2022, to appellant within 10 days of the date of this order . We further order the trial court cl erk

to file a certification within 15 days of the date of this order stating the date upon which the record was delivered to appellant. Failure to comply with this order may require this Court to abate the appeal and remand for a hearing in the trial cour t regarding the failure to provide appellant with access to the record.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_____

/s/ Peter Kelly

___________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ____ January 31, 2023

_______
#### Mizukami v. Mizukami

24327, 24442

01/29/2003

Affirmed
Exhibit 21
Central And South West Corporation
Subsidiaries of the Registrant
As of December 31, 1999

Company Name                                    State or Jurisdiction of
Business Conducted Under Same Name              Incorporation/Formation
----------------------------------              ------------------------
Central Power and Light Company                 Texas
539 North Carancahua Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-2802

CPL Capital I                                   Delaware
1616 Woodall Rodgers Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75202-1234

Public Service Company of Oklahoma              Oklahoma
212 East 6th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119-1212

PSO Capital I                                   Delaware
1616 Woodall Rodgers Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75202-1234

Southwestern Electric Power Company             Delaware
428 Travis Street
Shreveport Louisiana 71156-0001

SWEPCO Capital I                                Delaware
1616 Woodall Rodgers Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75202-1234

West Texas Utilities Company                    Texas
301 Cypress Street
Abilene, Texas 79601-5820

SEEBOARD, plc                                   United Kingdom
Registered Office
Forest Gate, Brighton Road
Crawley, West Sussex RH11 9BH

Central and South West Services, Inc.           Texas
2 West Second Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-3102
       and
1616 Woodall Rodgers Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75202-1234

C3 Communications, Inc.                         Delaware
1705 South Capital of Texas Highway - Suite 400
Austin, Texas 78746

CSW Credit, Inc.                                Delaware
1616 Woodall Rodgers Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75202-1234

CSW Energy, Inc.                                Texas
1616 Woodall Rodgers Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75202-1234

                                      4-20
<PAGE>


Company Name                                    State or Jurisdiction of
Business Conducted Under Same Name              Incorporation/Formation
----------------------------------              ------------------------
CSW Energy Services, Inc.                       Texas
1616 Woodall Rodgers Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75202-1234

CSW International, Inc.                         Delaware
1616 Woodall Rodgers Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75202-1234

CSW Leasing, Inc.                               Delaware
1616 Woodall Rodgers Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75202-1234

EnerShop Inc.                                   Delaware
2777 Stemmons Freeway - Suite 700
Dallas, Texas 75207-2214


                                      4-21
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20243 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS ANGEL FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-356-2

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Angel Flores has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Flores has responded to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Flores’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply616Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Lynn Blanchet ... (not verified)PermalinkFebruary 8, 2019 - 11:19amExcellent article. Very informative.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                              CALPROP CORPORATION
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
2-86872, 333-15333, 33-33640, 333-15137, 33-57226, 33-62516, 33-88892, and
333-15061 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 25, 1999 appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Calprop Corporation for the year ended December
31, 1998.
 
                                          DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
March 30, 1999
 
                                       44