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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties VI Limited Partnership 1997 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000730013
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES VI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,632
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      875
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          52,209
<DEPRECIATION>                                (24,751)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         26,790
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,182
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,719
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,467
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       395
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     9.24<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Leroy WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28526.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 7, 1956.

W. C. Hancock, Pittsburg, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is rape by force; the punishment, eight years.

Upon his arraignment appellant entered a plea of guilty and a jury being empaneled and the court having fully admonished him, he pleaded guilty before the jury.

The prosecutrix, a widow, testified that she lived alone; that she retired about 11:-30 P.M.; that as she was awakened she saw a man crawling on the floor; that she started hollering and the man jumped up and knocked her over on the bed and had intercourse with her; that he said “I have^ been planning this for 20 years and if you tell it I will kill you if it takes me 20 years.”

The prosecutrix further testified that she fought the man, whom she identified as' appellant, throughout the act and that she *782was scared, and that after he left she discovered that he had gained entrance into her home by cutting a screen.

Appellant testified that he “had intercourse with her (the prosecutrix) that night like she testified to ’while ago.” He also testified that he had on previous occasions during the preceding two years had intercourse with her.

Also in support of his application for suspension of sentence appellant testified that he had never been convicted of a felony in this or any other state.

The sole question presented on appeal relates to the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial. The motion alleges that prior to the trial appellant’s court appointed counsel and the district attorney agreed that if appellant would enter a plea of guilty he would be given a five year suspended sentence; that this information was conveyed to appellant by his counsel and appellant’s plea of guilty was entered because thereof; that but for such representation he would have entered a plea of not guilty; and that for the reasons stated the plea of guilty was not his voluntary act.

The motion was not sworn to or supported by the affidavit of appellant or any other person.

The unverified motion is insufficient as a pleading and the exception to the overruling thereof cannot be considered. Jackson v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 181, 206 S.W. 192; Epperson v. State, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 245; 199 S.W. 478; Bottom v. State, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 75, 286 S.W. 1091; Reynolds v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 276 S.W.2d 279; Barnett v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 622, 273 S.W.2d 878.

We observe that there is nothing in this record to suggest bad faith on the part of the district attorney or which would support a finding that there was an agreement under which, in the event the jury failed to recommend suspension of sentence, appellant would be given a new trial.

The judgment is affirmed.
### MEMORANDUM

TO: Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

FROM: Deb Bartram, ERG

DATE: September 30, 2015

SUBJECT: Evaluation of Flow Correlation

ERG is providing technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of

Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD) for development of effluent limitations guidelines

and standards (ELGs) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Indust ry.

In public comments received from the Utility Water Act Group (EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655

- A1), the commenter asserts that pollutant concentrations are correlated with transport water flow

rates. EPA evaluated all datasets in which both sample

- specific fl ow and effluent pollutant

concentration were available, including FGD wastewater, bottom ash transport water, and fly ash

transport water, and found that none of these assumptions were valid.

The attached plots present depictions of the wastewater flow ver sus pollutant concentration for the

follow ing wastestreams and pollutants :

 Fly ash transport water (data available for Frank E Ratts and John Amos power

plants)

o Arsenic

o Cadmium;

o Aluminum;

 Bottom ash transport water (data available for Frank E Ratts plant)

o Arsenic;

o Cadmium;

 FGD Wastewater

– Chemical precipitation effluent (data available for Keystone,

Allen, Belews Creek, Hatfield’s Ferry, Miami Fort, and Pleasant Prairie power

plants)

o Arsenic

o Mercury;

o Selenium;

o Nitrate

- nitrite;

 FGD Wastewater

– Biological t reatment effluent (data available for Allen and

Belews Creek power plants)

o Selenium; and

o Nitrate

- nitrite.Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 2

As shown in these plots, there is no discernible relationship between wastewater flow and pollutant

concentration based on the available data. Although p ollutant concentrations may be correlated

with transport water flow rates at specific plants, or for specific periods of time, EPA found that

there was no overall correlation when reviewing the full dataset available.

In addition, the commenter did not provide any data to support their assertions. This is surprising as

the commenter submitted several datasets from multiple plants related to bottom ash transport

water, but neglected to provide sample

- specific flow rates to allow for evaluation of their assertion.Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 3Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 4Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 5Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 6Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 7Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 8Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 9Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 10Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 11Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 12Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 13Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 14Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 15
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1898 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under 

which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2011 

Mr. REHBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under which certain persons may be treated as 

adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes. 

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 ‘‘Veterans 2nd Amend5 ment Protection Act’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1898 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PER2 SONS AS ADJUDICATED MENTALLY INCOM3 PETENT FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 55 of title 38, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new section: 

7 ‘‘§ 5511. Conditions for treatment of certain persons 

8 as adjudicated mentally incompetent for 

9 certain purposes 

10 ‘‘In any case arising out of the administration by the 

11 Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a person 

12 who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incom13 petent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness 

14 shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective 

15 under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 

16 18 without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, 

17 or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that 

18 such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.’’. 

19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

20 at the beginning of chapter 55 of such title is amended 

21 by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘5511. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1 

### Medina, Dayana

From: Medina, Dayana

Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 1:39 PM

To: Pettyjohn, Mary

Cc: Donaldson, Guy; Feldman, Michael

Subject: Region 6 Comments on Lake Catherine BART report

Attachments: R6 Comments_Lake Cat herine BART report.doc

Hi Mary,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Entergy Lake Catherine draft BART report. Region 6 comments are

attached. Please let me know if you would like to discuss further.

Best Regards,

Dayana Medina

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

Air Planning Section (6PD

‐ L)

214

‐ 665

‐ 7241

medina.dayana@epa.gov
#### Mrs. Mary MILES, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 17, 1955.

Jack A. Connor, Humphreys, Jones, Beard & Connor, Owensbqro, for appellant.

Clarence McCarroll,’ Woodward, Bartlett & McCarroll, Owensboro, Lewis D. Jones, Frankfort, for appellees.

*530CAMMACK, Judge:

■ This is an appeal by Mary Miles from a judgment of the Daviess. Circuit Court, which upheld a decision of, the Workmen’s Compensation Board denying her claim for compensation. The basis of the ruling was that her claim was barred by the statute of limitations. KRS 342.270(1).

Mrs. Miles received an injury to her ankle on August 16, 1949, when she stepped on a pickle in the Company’s cafeteria while performing her duties as a janitress at its Owensboro plant. She was treated first at the plant aid station, and then was sent to the hospital. The X-ray taken there showed no broken bones. She returned to work the following afternoon and continued to report for work until her retirement on August 30, 1949.

Mrs. Miles continued to call at the office of the plant physician after her retirement, because of her injured ankle. She was sent to the hospital again in March or April, 1950, where a brace was made for her foot. She said her ankle continued to trouble her, and in the summer of 1953 a second brace was made for her. Her claim was filed in October, 1953.

All the bills for expense incurred by Mrs. Miles, which include hospital, doctors, braces and shoes, except her own doctor’s bills, were paid by the Company. It is her contention that the payments of these bills were “voluntary payments” within the meaning of KRS 342.270(1) and that the statute did not begin to run until the cessation of the payments in the summer of 1953.

The question of whether the payment of part of a hospital bill would toll the statute was before this Court in the case of Pipes Chevrolet Company v. Bryant, Ky., 274 S.W.2d 663, 664. In that case we held that the reference to “páyments” in the statute means *“payments of compensation.”*That decision is controlling in this case.

Mrs. Miles insists also that the Company is estopped to rely on the statute of limitations because the Company doctor and an official of the Company told her- she did not have a compensable injury. However, conduct which will operate as an es-toppel to rely on the statute of limitations must be such as tends to lull the employee into a belief that his claim will be paid. Pipes Chevrolet Company v. Bryant, Ky., 274 S.W.2d 663; Jefferson Development Company v. Olinick, Ky., 272 S.W.2d 676. Obviously, such was not the situation here.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,324,949
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,297,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,622,948
<PP&E>                                     168,331,700
<DEPRECIATION>                           (161,114,094)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,840,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          760,260
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,080,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,840,554
<SALES>                                      7,827,380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,883,071
<CGS>                                        3,721,888
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,721,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               540,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,621,183
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,621,183
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,621,183
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    2,193
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2,193
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32
**Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) ofthe Securities and Exchange Act of 1934**

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007(the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule15d-14(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Ann D. Murtlow, President and Chief Executive Officer and Kurt A. Tornquist,Vice President, Controller andPrincipal Financial Officer of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.(IPALCO), each certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or  15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IPALCO.
          Date:March 24, 2008By: /s/ Ann D. Murtlow    Ann D. Murtlow    *President and Chief Executive Officer*                Date:March 24 2008By: /s/ Kurt A. Tornquist    Kurt A. Tornquist    *Vice President, Controller and*    *Principal Financial Officer* 
A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to IPALCO and will be retained by IPALCO andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21


                                SUBSIDIARIES OF
                             THE CLOTHESTIME, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

             Name                             State of Incorporation
             ----                             ----------------------
<S>     <C>                                            <C>
1.      MRJ Industries                                  Delaware
2.      Clothestime Acquisition Corporation             Delaware
3.      Clothestime Insurance Company                   Vermont
4.      Clothestime International, Inc.                 Delaware
5.      Clothestime Investment, Inc.                    Delaware
6.      Clothestime Stores, Inc.                        Delaware
</TABLE>
#### Lannon Neal PINKSTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27407.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 9, 1955.

J. P. Moseley, Dallas, for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of possessing a bomb, and his punishment was assessed at 5 years in the penitentiary.

•  ■ ’ The testimony' of .thrée peace officers, while testifying for the state, shows that they saw the driver of an automobile fail to observe two stop signs; that they pursued the automobile, sounded the siren and, as the automobiles,w.ere being, brought, to a stop, they saw an object thrown from the right-hand side of the automobile they were following. Their testimony further shp-ws that they recovered the object thrown from the automobile and found it to be a “jelly-like substance wrapped in a white cloth”; that they found two electric blasting caps with wires attached, fuses, flashlight batteries, gloves and a set of tools on the front floorboard of said automobile.

It was further shown that appellant was sitting in the right front seat, the driver being a man named Bobby Joe Neville, and another man named Stephens was'in the rear seat at the time the automobile was stopped.

With reference to where appellant was sitting in the automobile, Constable Burnett testified that the blasting caps and fuses were in a brown paper sack “right between his. feet.” ' . •

Park Calhoun testified that his profession was that of an ;“explosive- operator”.; that he had examined, t,h.e'substance in question in this case and stated that such substance was nitro-jelly or -jellied nitró-glycerin; and that he used portions of this substance for two explosions. He further. testified that such substance, when exploded, was capable of causing damage to persons and property. Barnes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 278 S.W.2d 305; Hill v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 278 S.W.2d 842.

Appellant did not testify and offered no evidence in his own behalf.

We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.

•  Appellant complains. of the failure of the court to" submit a charge on circumstantial evidence.

*260We conclude that the facts proved hy the state constitute direct evidence that the appellant possessed a bomb, as alleged, and the submission of a charge on circumstantial evidence was not required. Bell v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 137, 179 S.W.2d 550.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES--OXLEY ACT OF 2002


          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trinity Medical Group USA,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James S. Namnath, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, 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) 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/  James S. Namnath
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        James S. Namnath
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        September 18, 2002
**ACCOUNTANT'S
      AWAR** **ENESS
      LETTER**







Securities
      and Exchange Commission


450
      Fifth
      Street, N.W.


Washington,
      D.C. 20549








We
      are
      aware that our report dated October 19, 2006 on our review of the interim
      financial statements of I-trax, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2006
      and for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2006 and
      2005
      and included in Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 is
      incorporated by reference in the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-3
      (No. 333-110891 and 333-114604) and on Form S-8 (No. 333-125685). Pursuant
      to
      Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be
      considered as part of the Registration Statements prepared or certified by
      us
      within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.








**GOLDSTEIN
      GOLUB KESSLER LLP**


New
      York,
      New York





November
      14, 2006
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22
- 40766 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Charles Hawkins, Jr.,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:22
- CR
- 16 - 1

**__________________ ____________**  Before **Higginbotham, Stewart,** and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Charles Hawkins, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hawkins has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the r elevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 24, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-40766 Document: 00516830490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2023No. 22
- 40766

2 with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further res ponsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 22-40766 Document: 00516830490 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2023