alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Devany, Dennis (OST) From: Will Conroy [wconroy@conroyandconroy.com] ..,Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 7:41 AM**~...** 

## To:"**~,** " .Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST)

.Subject: EAS at PBG - Colgan vs Cape Air Dennis:& 

### Br.i!&il" Perhaps you've seen the "My Opinionllcolumn in today's Press Republican. If not here'sthe link. http://www.pressreptiblican;com!0204inmyopinion/localstory043225716.html?keyword=topstory I agree with Andrew Schonbek's view and encourage you notto go with Colgan as suggested by our county legislators butinstead to allow Cape Airto continue as the Essential Air Service providerto our community. Actually I believe our legislators may have acted totally inappropriately for afew reasons, among them that some ofthe votes were cast via email from 

### FL which I understand may not be in accordance with law.

.Thanks foryourconsideration in this matter.

Respectfully, William L. Conroy, President Conroy 

### & Conroy Contractors, Inc. 48 Spellman Rd. Plattsburgh, NY 12901 www.conroyandconroy.comwconroy@conroyandconroy.com Ph 518 562 2460: Fax 518 5622461: Cell 518 726 0333

1
|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                        
|View History:                                                                               
|                                                                                            
|New Mexico - East Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Decreases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|New Mexico - East Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Decreases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 74    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 65     | 88     | 148    | 179    | 189    | 342    | 298    | 129    | 346    | 510   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 794    | 387    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ C ase No. 5D 22- 1348 LT Case No. 2021
- 300640
- CFDB

_____________________________ D AMIAN M. D EROUSHA , A ppellant,
v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , A ppellee.

_____________________________ O n appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County
. Karen A. Foxman , Judge
. M atthew J. Metz,, Public Defender, and Robert J. Pearce, III, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. A shley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. De ce mber 5, 2023 P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . E DWARDS , C
. J . , W ALLIS , and K ILBANE , JJ., co ncur .2 _____________________________ N ot final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           63339
<SECURITIES>                                     23275
<RECEIVABLES>                                    15285
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2650
<INVENTORY>                                       3363
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                118387
<PP&E>                                          698645
<DEPRECIATION>                                  215889
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  824334
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            61085
<BONDS>                                         535000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         16249
<OTHER-SE>                                      176251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    824334
<SALES>                                         102793
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                104033
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    58348
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 30388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   573
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1418
<INCOME-TAX>                                       539
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                879
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       879
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PVH Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2023 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zachary Coughlin, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











Dated:December 7, 2023By:/s/ ZACHARY COUGHLINName:Zachary CoughlinExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
#### Ex parte SUGER.

No. 23340.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 6, 1946.

Hughes & Monroe, of Dallas, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Relator was charged by indictment with the unlawful, malicious killing of Mrs. Rose Suger, in one count thereof, and in a further count she is charged with being an accomplice to such killing in that she aided, advised and encouraged one Johnnie Andrew Butler to kill the said Mrs. Rose Suger, and that she promised said Butler a reward in a sum of money, and that she secured and furnished him a pistol for the purpose of assisting him in such killing, etc.

Relator sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the district judge, who, upon a hearing thereon, entered his order denying bail herein, and from this order we have an appeal.

*160All prisoners are bailable by sufficient sureties, unless in capital cases when the proof is evident. Sec. *11,*Art. 1, State Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St.; Art. S, C. C.P.

It should be borne in mind that although the confession of Johnnie Andrew Butler was introduced herein, he did not testify in this hearing. In an effort to show the guilt of relator as an accomplice, such extrajudicial confession was admissible only for the purpose of showing the guilt of Butler, and should be limited to such purpose. It could not be introduced for the purpose of showing the guilt of relator. See Branch’s Penal Code, p. 43, Sec. 71, for list of authorities; also Art. 80, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.; Millner v. State, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 45, 162 S.W. 348; Millner v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 22, 169 S.W. 899.

This court has consistently held that the phrase “When the proof is evident," as used in the Constitution, and the statute, Art. 5, C.C.P., relative to bail in capital cases, means that the evidence would lead a well guarded and dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that an offense has been committed; that the accused is the guilty party, and will probably be punished capitally if the law is properly administered. See Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. Art. 5.

From the testimony presented to us herein we are unable to reach the conclusion that the relator will probably be punished capitally.

So believing, this cause is reversed and bail granted in the sum of $7,500, conditioned as required by law.
#### TEXAS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. v. GENERAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION et al.

No. 9729.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

June 16, 1948.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1948.

*152Price Daniel, Atty. Gen. of Texas, and Robert O. Koch and Charles P. Atkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joe K. Wells and C. H. Messer, both of Austin, for Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission.

Lattimore & Couch, of Fort Worth, for appellees.

RAYMOND GRAY, Justice.

This suit was brought by General Engineering Corporation and General Industrial Supply Corporation against Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission, the individual members thereof, the State Treasurer, and the Attorney General, all in their respective official capacities, to recover a sum of money paid under protest (art. 7057b, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Civ.St.) as unemployment compensation taxes. The sum of money here sued for is the difference between 2.7% of the total taxable wages paid by appellants and a favorable experience rating of 0.5%.

Prior to January 9, 1946, General Engineering Corporation was a limited partnership engaged in the engineering and construction business. As a part of such partnership business there was set up a supply or merchandise department which handled and sold industrial supplies and materials, and also furnished such supplies and materials to the construction department. The partnership was under the control of J. M. Sprekelmeyer, and, for the purpose of paying unemployment compensation taxes, had earned a favorable benefit rating of 0.5%.

On January 9, 1946, the plaintiff corporations were formed: General Engineering Corporation to take over the engineering business of the partnership, and General Industrial Supply Corporation to take over the supply business. These corporations were under the unified control of J. M. Sprekelmeyer, and taxes were assessed against them by the Commission at the rate of 2.7%, which amount was paid under protest.

A trial to the court resulted in judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants have appealed, and here present, for review, the sole question of whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to the favorable rating of 0.5% of the predecessor partnership.

The questions of law here are the same as presented in Dallas Liquor Warehouse No. 4 et al. v. State, 213 S.W.2d 147, this day decided by this court. For the reasons stated in that opinion, which is here referred to and adopted, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



                                  CERTIFICATION



I, Kenneth McCullum, certify that:


1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
         Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
         of the periods included in the year covered by this annual report of
         Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2005-030;

2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
         report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the
         pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
         reports is included in these reports;

4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar
         agreement, and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review
         required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports,
         the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under
         that agreement; and

5.       The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
         trustee's or depositor's compliance with the minimum servicing or
         similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent
         public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the
         Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
         procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar
         agreements, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

                  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents



Date: August 9, 2005

/s/ Kenneth McCullum

Kenneth McCullum
Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
Exhibit 32.1 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 

 

 

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March  31, 2019 of Aqua America, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher H. Franklin,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

 

 

|  | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or Section 78o(d)); 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/ Christopher H. Franklin                 |   |
| Christopher H. Franklin                |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer  |   |
| May 3, 2019                            |   |

﻿

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4540 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4540

        To suspend temporarily the duty on Tungsten concentrate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2012

 Mrs. Ellmers introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on Tungsten concentrate.

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

SECTION 1. TUNGSTEN CONCENTRATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Tungsten            Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          concentrate (CAS                                                  12/31/2015
                          No. 7440-33-7)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2611.00.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

KATHY A. MORRISON, 

Petitioner, 

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent.

__________________________ 

2013-3133 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DE0842120298-I-1. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

O R D E R

Kathy A. Morrison moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis.

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted.

Case: 13-3133 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 06/20/2013
MORRISON V. OPM 2

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

s23 

Case: 13-3133 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 06/20/2013
|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                      
|                                                                                      
|U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,929 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,991  | 2,065  | 2,386  | 2,729  | 3,200  | 3,427  | 3,223  | 3,401  | 3,984  | 4,490 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4,154  | 4,129  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023