alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                                        332,521
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 470,514
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    0
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             33,566,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                               0
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 24,609,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               33,566,796
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            7,735,659
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            5,116,404
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               57,231
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            822,510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             1,739,514
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         1,739,514
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                1,739,514
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0
        
 

</TABLE>
# C_2016202EN.01017101.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/171 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/171

---

Article 288

(ex Article 249 TEC)

(ex Article 249 TEC)

To exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions.

A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

A decision shall be binding in its entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is addressed shall be binding only on them.

Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force.

---
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Agricultural

Marketing

Service

1400 Independence Avenue, SW.

Room 2968-5, STOP 0225

Washington, DC 20250-0225

December 8,2009

Mr. Daniel Smith

Mr. Paul Christ

Maine Dairy Industry Association

64 Maine Street,

Post Office Box 801

Monþelier, Vermont 05601

Dear Mr. Smith and Mr. Christ:

Enclosed is the information you requested in your May 4, 2OOg, letter to Paul Kyburz, Market

Administrator for the Upper lviidwest brder, Federal Order 30, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. A copy of

you, ,"qu"rt also is enólðsed. Your r"qu"it entailed deriving the "competitive. price zone" under six

áriteria, calculating the proportion of producer milk by state in these zones, in each state and in total, and

also cálculating tñe uuii"tìon in miù prices within the Federal orders. All ten Federal milk orders

provided data ior this analysis, and the data vvere aggrcgated at the Market Administrator's office in

Minneapolis.

Specifically included, for the selected month of December 2008, are the maps and tables, denoted as

Figures I through 6 and Tables 1a through 6a, showing the six various "competitive price zones"

mentioned under Item #1 of your letter.

Data requested in \tem#2 of your letter are included in Tables lb through 6b and an aggregated or total

number is presented for all six zones in Table 8.

Data requested in Item #3 regarding milk prices within the Federal order system are presented in Table.7.

This table shows, for eachlrder, the gross pay price per hundredweight net of the producer price

differential (ppD) at location. (Some ord".s donot announce a PPD but used, instead, the Uniform Price

at location less the Class III price). For December 2008, some orders had a negative PPD (or negative

result after subtracting the Class III price from the Uniform Price at location).

Dr. Corey Freije of the Upper Midwest Order staff in Minneapolis has coordinated the project on behalf

of Dairy Þtográms. If you ñave any questions, please contact Corey at952-277'2355 or

c fre i ielôfin rna3 0.corn.

Sincerely,

Dana H. Coale

Deputy Administrator

Dairy Programs

Enclosures
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                          28,662
<SECURITIES>                                    39,353
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,696
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,718
<INVENTORY>                                     12,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,038
<PP&E>                                          50,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 157,308
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,286
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           305
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   157,308
<SALES>                                        108,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               108,017
<CGS>                                           48,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               108,571
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   976
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 203
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (14,336)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,464)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,464)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.01)
        

</TABLE>
M A N D A T E

TO THE 24TH DISTRICT COURT of JACKSON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 5th day of 

February, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Herman Lee Kindred, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00526-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 13-5-9030)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 5, 2015.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal 

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 21st day of April, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
dep 

west virginia department of environmental protection 

Division of Air Quality 

601 57lh Street SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Phone: (304) 926-0475 

Fax: (304) 926-0479 

Ms. Cristina Fernandez 

Air Protection Division 

U.S. EPA Region 3 

1650 Arch Street (3AP30) 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

June 24, 2013 

Earl Ray Tomblin, Governor 

Randy C. Huffinan, Cabinet Secretary 

www.dep. wv.gov 

RECEIVED 

JUL -9 2013 

Division Director (3APOO) 

Re: Request to Use the 2008 NEI Ammonia and VOC Data to Supplement Prior Submittals to 

Satisfy the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 172(c)(3) Emissions Inventory Requirements 

for Three West Virginia PM25 Nonattainment Areas 

Dear Ms. Fernandez: 

The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has previously submitted three redesignation 

requests/maintenance plans to EPA, which were also intended to satisfy the CAA §172(c)(3) 

requirements for comprehensive emissions inventories. The affected plans are for: the 1997 

Wheeling, the 2006 Charleston, and the 2006 Weirton PM2_

5 nonattainment areas. The plans were 

submitted to EPA on March 8, 2012; December 6, 2012; and June 8, 2012, respectively. Upon 

preliminary review, EPA found all three plans to be administratively and technically complete 

but did not take regulatory action on these State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The SIP 

inventories contained data for direct PM25, as well as the precursors nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 

sulfur dioxide (S02). However, the precursors ammonia and volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

were omitted. 

DAQ has worked with EPA Region 3 senior staff to determine how to address this 

recently discovered deficiency. Therefore, we are requesting that EPA use data DAQ has 

previously certified and submitted to the 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) to supplement 

its prior submittals to satisfy the requirements of CAA § 172( c )(3) for all three plans referenced 

above. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me via email: 

william.f.durham@wv.gov or by phone at 304.926.0499 x1242. 

RECEIVED 

JUL 0 9 2013 

3AP30 

Sincerely, 

William F. Durham, Deputy Director 

Division of Air Quality 

Promoting a healthy environment.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Certification**

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States      Code)**

|                                 |                                                                                                                                       |                                                    |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                August 14, 2008 | By:                                                                                                                              | /s/ Noah              Berkowitz, M.D., Ph.D.  |
|                                 | Noah                Berkowitz, M.D., Ph.D.President                and Chief Executive Officer(principal                executive officer) |

|                                 |                                                                       |                                                     |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                August 14, 2008 | By:                                                              | /s/ Wendy              A.              Milici  |
|                                 | Wendy                A. Milici(principal                financial officer) |

----
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 16, 2015

No. 04-15-00162-CR

Manuel Balderas GONZALEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR6806

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Manuel Gonzalez entered into a plea bargain with the State, pursuant to which Gonzalez 

pleaded guilty to knowingly causing bodily injury to a child. The trial court imposed sentence in 

accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “is a plea-bargain case, and 

the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Gonzalez timely filed a 

notice of appeal. The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s rule 25.2(a)(2) certification 

and a written plea bargain agreement, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). This court 

must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not 

been made part of the record.” Id.

The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the 

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(a)(2). The record also appears to support the trial court’s certification that Gonzalez does 

not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding 

that court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification 

is accurate). 

Gonzalez is hereby given notice that this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to rule 

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless an amended certification showing that 

he has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by May 7, 2015. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 25.2(d); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on 

merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for 

publication).
We order all appellate deadlines suspended until further order of the court. We further 

order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and the court 

reporter.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS IN THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 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-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,326
<SECURITIES>                                    11,925
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,877
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,564
<PP&E>                                           7,165
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,071
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,637
<OTHER-SE>                                    (16,181)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,967
<SALES>                                         11,098
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,098
<CGS>                                            1,237
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,114
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   177
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (571)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,613)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        37
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,650)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,650)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)
        

</TABLE>
#### Good-Wine Realty Corp., Plaintiff, *v.*Stanley I. Fishman et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

March 25, 1959.

*Irving Lester Levitt*for plaintiff.

*Stanley B. Epstein*for defendants.

James S. Beown, J.

Motion by defendants to transfer this action from the Municipal Court to the Supreme Court because of a counterclaim in excess of the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court is denied. Such counterclaim does not oust the Municipal Court of its jurisdiction of the action because it involves a sum greater than that for which that court may render judgment in defendants’ favor *(Weinick*v. *I. G. S. Pants Co., 189*Misc. 516).

Submit order.
### TDCJ Offender Details Page 1 of2 

# [iiiTDCJ Home

- New Offender Search 

# Offender Information Details 

# I R,eturn to$earch list ,,

### J

SID Number: TDCJ Number: Name: Race: Gender: 

### 008: Maximum Sentence Date: Current Facility: Pr?jected Release Date: Parole Eligibility Date: OffenderVisitation Eligible: 

### 08017251 01744663 CLARK,JERAMIAH B 

### M 1990-09-17 2023-03-18 FERGUSON 

### 2023-03-18 2017-03-17 YES Information providedis updated once daily during weekdays andmultiple times perday on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, familymembers and • friends are encouraged to call the unitpriorto traveling for

### a visit.
SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE: Scheduled Release Date: Offender is not scheduled for release at this time. Scheduled Release Type: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. Scheduled Release Location: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

# Parole Review Information

Offense History: Offense Offense Sentence County Case No. Sentence (YY-MMDate Date DO)
2011-03-18 

# I AGG ROBBERY

### ow 2011-09-29 HARRIS 129949901010 12-00-00



### http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=08017251 511112015
#### GARY N. POLYVIOU ET AL. *v.*MARIA J. NOLASCO ET AL.

(AC 20008)

Lavery, C. J., and Mihalakos and Zarella, Js.

Submitted on briefs June 14

officially released July 18, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1IEA Income Fund XII, L.P.Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION     I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IEA Income Fund XII, L.P. (the“Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 13, 2007   /s/ DENNIS J. TIETZ   Dennis J. Tietz  President of CCC  (Chief Executive Officer)