alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Operating Facilities by Technology in the State of 

Wyoming

This table provides data of all currently tracked renewable energy facilities in the state. 

Data is derived from the Renewable Plant Information System, developed at the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Hydro

Photovoltaic

Wind

Technology Location Owner Fuel 

Type Plant Name Capacity (kW)

Hydro ALCOVA BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water ALCOVA 36,000.0 

Hydro THERMOPOLIS BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water BOYSEN 15,000.0 

Hydro BUFFALO BUFFALO, CITY OF (WY) Water BUFFALO 245.0 

Hydro CODY BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water BUFFALO BILL 18,000.0 

Hydro KEMMERER BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water FONTENELLE 10,000.0 

Hydro ALCOVA BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water FREMONT 

CANYON 66,800.0 

Hydro SHOSHONE IRRIGATION 

DISTRICT Water GARLAND CANAL 2,610.0 

Hydro GLENDO BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water GLENDO 38,000.0 

Hydro GUERNSEY BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water GUERNSEY 6,400.0 

Hydro CODY BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water HEART 

MOUNTAIN 5,000.0 

Hydro GOODMAN, CHARLES Water KINKY CREEK 12.0 

Hydro SINCLAIR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water KORTES 36,000.0 

Hydro MORTON BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water PILOT BUTTE 1,600.0 

Hydro PINEDALE PINEDALE POWER & LIGHT CO. Water PINEDALE 100.0 

Hydro SINCLAIR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water SEMINOE 51,000.0 

Hydro CODY BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water SHOSHONE 3,000.0 

Hydro BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water SPIRIT 

MOUNTAIN 4,500.0 

Hydro BEDFORD LOWER VALLEY POWER & LIGHT 

INC Water STRAWBERRY CREEK 1,500.0 

Hydro LOWER VALLEY POWER & LIGHT 

INC Water SWIFT CREEK 800.0 

Hydro PacifiCorp Water VIVA 

NAUGHTON 750.0 

Photovoltaic Laramie University Solar Univ Wyoming 1 10.0 

Photovoltaic Laramie University Solar Univ Wyoming 2 1.0 

Photovoltaic Laramie University Solar Univ Wyoming 

Parking 35.0 

Wind RAWLINS Cinergy Global Power Wind FOOT CREEK IV 16,800.0 

Wind ARLINGTON PACIFICORP/EUGENE WATER & Wind FOOTE CREEK I 41,400.0 
ELECTRIC BOARD

Wind Cinergy Global Power Wind FOOTE CREEK II 1,800.0 

Wind Cinergy Global Power Wind FOOTE CREEK 

III 24,750.0 

Wind Medicine Bow PLATTE RIVER POWER 

AUTHORITY Wind Medicine Bow I 3,300.0 

Wind Medicine Bow PLATTE RIVER POWER 

AUTHORITY Wind Medicine Bow II 1,320.0 

Wind Arlington Shell Renewables Wind Rock River I 50,000.0 

Wind Saratoga TERRA MOYA AQUA/GLOBAL 

WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS Wind Simpson Ridge 10,000.0 

Total # 31

Total 

Capacity 446,733.0
#### James (Gene) STEWART, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 30, 1965.

J. E. Caylor, Somerset, Allen & Clontz, Mount Vernon, for appellant.

Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., David Murrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of a third violation of local option laws (KRS 242.230 and 242.990) and sentenced to serve one year in prison. In seeking reversal of the conviction he contends that the trial court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury which were not authorized by the evidence.

Before reaching the merits of the arguments of the parties we must determine whether appellant has preserved the alleged error for appellate review. This preliminary question arises since appellant did not object at the time the instructions were submitted to the jury nor did he state in his motion for a new trial any reason why the instructions were incorrect. The only allegation of error concerning the instructions is contained in his motion for new trial that “the court erred in the instructions given the jury.”

In Piper v. Commonwealth, Ky., 387 S.W.2d 13 (rendered February 12, 1965), RCr 9.22, 9.54 and 10.12 were construed to require claimed errors to be timely presented so as to afford the trial court an opportunity to rule upon the questions raised.

*911Since in the instant case the contentions of error are based upon insufficiency of evidence to support the given instructions, we conclude that the mere allegation the court erred, in instructing the jury was not sufficiently specific to apprise the trial court of the nature of the alleged error nor give it a chance to consider the merits of these contentions. Hence they are not preserved for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Luther GALLOWAY and Doris Galloway, Appellees. TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Marvin BOWLES and Margaret Bowles, Appellees. TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Clarence BODNER and Edith Bodner, Appellees. TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Raymond FASHONER and Martha Fashoner, Appellees. TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Andrew JAMES and Gladys James, Appellees. TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Hester SPURLOCK, Elizabeth Spurlock, Ruth Spurlock Sparrow and James H. Sparrow, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 20, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 1958.

Joseph E. Stopher, A. J. Deindoerfer, Boehl, Stopher, Graves & Deindoerfer, Louisville, Pat Rankin, Stanford, for appellant.

Robert M. Spragens, Lebanon, James F. Clay, Danville, Harris C. Rhodes, Cabell D. Francis, Stanford, James G. Sheehan, Jr., Danville, for appellees.

STEWART, Judge.

The foregoing six cases on appeal were consolidated with Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation v. Carman this day decided. See Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation v. Carman, Ky., 314 S.W.2d 684. The various appellees in the above cases, owners of land situated in Lincoln County, executed easement agreements to Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation identical as to their provisions with those of the easement agreement executed by the Carmans to that corporation.

The lower court handed down the same judgment in each of these cases as the one entered in the Carman case. On these appeals the same issues raised in the Carman case are presented.

*689The opinion of this Court in the Carman case controls in every respect the factual and legal controversy involved in each of the above appeals, as the questions are identical. The Carman case was in fact written as a pilot opinion to govern the disposition of all these appeals, and, for this reason, it is unnecessary to repeat in an extended opinion in each of these cases what was written in that case.

Wherefore, the judgments are reversed *in all*of the *above*appeals with directions that new ones be entered in each of them in conformity with the opinion rendered in Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation v. Carman.

MONTGOMERY, J., not sitting.
U. S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave ., SE Washington , DC 20590 9/29/2015

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11667 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0613- 0003. Dear Sir, iFiy Media Productions, LLC was issued an exemption numbered 11667 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting aerial videography and photography. iFiy Media Productions, LLC herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions ofthe Exemption . iFiy Media Productions, LLC wishes to operate a DJI Inspire 1 under the same terms and conditions contained in the exemption. The DJI Inspire 1 is a 4 motor, 4 rotor multirotor SUAS . Operating the Inspire 1 is not substantial different from operating the S900 which is already approved in the exemption

**an~** COA. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms ofthe exemption . As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of another type of unmanned aerial vehicle , iFiy Media Productions, LLC respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment. Please contact the Don Lien should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption . Sincerely yours ,



# ~~· Don Lien
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-16-00111-CV

Style: In re Kurtz Properties, Ltd., A Texas Limited Partnership, and Houston 

Foam Plastics, Inc.

Date motion filed*: March 31, 2016

Type of motion: Second Unopposed Motion of Real Party in Interest to Extend 

Deadline for Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Party filing motions: Real Party in Interest Harris County

Document to be filed: Response

Is appeal accelerated? Yes (original proceeding).

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: March 17, 2016

Number of extensions granted: 1 Current Due Date: April 1, 2016

Date Requested: April 8, 2016

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: April 8, 2016.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 the Court

Date: April 6, 2016
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 Annual Report of Soyo Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended  September 30, 2008 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  Nancy
Chu, Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 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; 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/ Nancy Chu
-----------------------
Nancy Chu
Chief Financial Officer
November 11, 2008
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  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K/A (Amendment
No. 2) of Cytogen  Corporation  (the  "Company") for the year ended December 31,
2002 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned,  Christopher P. Schnittker,  Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, 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.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                   /s/ Christopher P. Schnittker
                                   ------------------------------------------
Dated:  September 19, 2003         Christopher P. Schnittker
                                   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To Cytogen CORPORATION:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Form S-8
Registration Statement (File No. 33-30595), filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 18, 1989, Form S-3 Registration Statement (File
No. 33-35140), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31,
1990, Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 33-52574), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 1992, Form S-8 Registration
Statement (File No. 33-57004), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 12, 1993, Form S-3 Registration Statement (File No. 33-77396) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 6, 1994, Form S-8
Registration Statement (File No. 33-63321), filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 10, 1995, Form S-8 Registration Statement (File
No. 333-00431), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25,
1996 and Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-04679), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 1996, Form S-8 Registration
Statement (File No. 333-27673) filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 23, 1997, Form S-3 Registration Statement (File No. 333-43809) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 1998, Form S-1/A-2
Registration Statement (File No. 333-68759) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 8, 1999, Form S-1/A-1 Registration Statement
(File No. 333-67947) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 27, 1999, Form S-1/A-2 Registration Statement (File No. 333-67947) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 1999 and Form S-3
Registration Statement (File No. 333-83215) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 20, 1999.


                                                       ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Philadelphia, PA
  March 27, 2000
**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Bondy Tan, certify that:
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lightscape Technologies Inc.; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

2.            Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.             I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and I have:

a)             designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)            evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c)             disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

5.             I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)             all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:    August 14, 2007

 

 

/s/ Bondy Tan

Bondy Tan, President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1289 

To permit each State to have 3 statues on display in the United States 

Capitol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 31, 2011 

Mr. COHEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To permit each State to have 3 statues on display in the 

United States Capitol. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Share America’s Di5 verse History in the Capitol Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMITTING STATES TO HAVE 3 STATUES ON DIS7 PLAY IN CAPITOL. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1814 of the Revised Stat9 utes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 2131) is amended by 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1289 IH

1 striking ‘‘not exceeding two in number’’ and inserting ‘‘not 

2 exceeding 3 in number’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT REGARDING PROCE4 DURES FOR REPLACEMENT OF STATUES.—Section 311(c) 

5 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 

6 U.S.C. 2132(c)), is amended by striking ‘‘not more than 

7 two statues’’ and inserting ‘‘not more than 3 statues’’. 

8 SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING OPPORTUNITY 

9 FOR PLACEMENT OF STATUES OF WOMEN 

10 AND MINORITIES. 

11 It is the sense of Congress that, in light of the fact 

12 that statues of women and members of racial and ethnic 

13 minority groups are underrepresented in the United States 

14 Capitol, each State should use the opportunity provided 

15 by this Act to have an additional statue on display in the 

16 Capitol to furnish a statue depicting a woman or a mem17 ber of a racial or ethnic minority group who is a notable 

18 figure in the State’s history. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1



                            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 Soyo Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the  undersigned,  Ming
Tung Chok,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company  certifies,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 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; 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/ Ming Tung Chok
-----------------------
Ming Tung Chok
Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains a summary of financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         596,614
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,172,788
<ALLOWANCES>                                   143,400
<INVENTORY>                                  7,262,477
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,033,468
<PP&E>                                      34,284,185
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,671,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,233,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,441,916
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       379,875
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,233,892
<SALES>                                     54,977,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            55,086,853
<CGS>                                       44,136,738
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               51,425,282
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             436,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,381,167
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,249,202
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,120,456
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,120,456
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
        


</TABLE>