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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,540
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,279
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (90)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,510
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,433
<PP&E>                                           2,917
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,538)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,529
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,842
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,912
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,283
<SALES>                                          6,247
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,247
<CGS>                                            4,817
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    18
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,774)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      50
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,728)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.99)
        

</TABLE>
GBUAPCD – Rule 200

Page 1 of 1

09/05/74

REGULATION II – PERMITS

RULE 200. PERMITS REQUIRED

Adopted: 09/05/74 

A. Authority to Construct. Before any person builds, erects, alters, or replaces any article, 

machine, equipment or other contrivance which may cause the issuance of air 

contaminants or the use of which may eliminate or reduce or control the issuance of air 

contaminants, such person shall obtain a written authority to construct from the Air 

Pollution Control Officer. An authority to construct shall remain in effect until the permit 

to operate the equipment for which the application was filed is granted or denied or the 

application is cancelled. 

B. Permit to Operate. Before any person operates or uses any article, machine, equipment 

or other contrivance which may cause the issuance of air contaminants, a written permit 

shall be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Officer. No permit to operate or use shall 

be granted either by the Air Pollution Control Officer, or the Hearing Board for any such 

article, machine, equipment or contrivance described herein until the information 

required is presented to the Air Pollution Control Officer and such article, machine, 

equipment or contrivance is altered, if necessary, and made to conform to the standards 

set forth in Rule 212 and elsewhere in these Rules and Regulations. 

C. Review of Permits. The Air Pollution Control Officer may at any time require from an 

applicant for, or holder of, any authority to construct or permit to operate, such 

information, analyses, plans or specifications as will disclose the nature, extent, quantity 

or degree of air contaminants which are or may be discharged into the atmosphere. 

D. Post of Permit to Operate. A person who has been granted under Rule 200 (B) a permit 

to operate any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance described in Rule 200 

(B), shall firmly affix such permit to operate, or an approved facsimile or other approved 

identification bearing the permit number upon the article, machine, equipment or other 

contrivance in such a manner as to be clearly visible and accessible. In the event that 

the article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance is so constructed or operated that 

the permit to operate cannot be so placed, the permit to operate shall be mounted so as 

to be clearly visible in an accessible place within 25 feet of the article, machine, 

equipment or other contrivance, or maintained readily available at all times on the 

operating premises. 

E. Alteration of Permit. A person shall not willfully deface, alter, forge, counterfeit, or falsify 

any permit issued under these Rules and Regulations. 

F. Control Equipment. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to authorize the control officer 

to require the use of machinery, devices, or equipment of a particular type or design if 

the required emission standard may be consistently met by machinery, devices, 

equipment, product or process change otherwise available. 

[Intentionally left blank.]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3378 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the nonbusiness 

energy property credit to include the insulation component of insulated siding. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 29, 2013 

Mr. WELCH (for himself and Mr. GIBBS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the nonbusiness energy property credit to include the 

insulation component of insulated siding. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY TO IN4 CLUDE INSULATION COMPONENT OF INSU5 LATED SIDING. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 25C(c) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik8 ing ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking the 

9 period at the end of subparagraph (D) and inserting ‘‘, 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3378 IH

1 and’’, and by adding at the end the following new subpara2 graph: 

3 ‘‘(E) the insulation portion of any building 

4 cladding system (including vinyl siding with in5 tegral insulating material) that has a minimum 

6 thermal resistance of R–2.’’. 

7 (b) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Subsection (b) of section 

8 25C(b) of such Code is amended by redesignating para9 graph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting after para10 graph (2) the following new paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(3) CERTAIN INSULATION.—In the case of 

12 amounts paid or incurred for components described 

13 in subsection (c)(2)(E) by any taxpayer for any tax14 able year, the credit allowed under this section with 

15 respect to such amounts for such year shall not ex16 ceed the excess (if any) of $250 over the aggregate 

17 credits allowed under this section with respect to 

18 such amounts for all prior taxable years ending after 

19 December 31, 2005.’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

22 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00096-CR

______________________________

GARY TRISTON GUICE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 188th Judicial District Court

 Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 36,392-A

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
In cause number 06-08-00095-CR (trial number 35,832-A), Guice was convicted of 1

aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. In cause number 06-08-00097-CR (trial

number 36,394-A), Guice was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to life

imprisonment.

2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Gary Triston Guice appeals from his conviction on his open plea of guilty to three felony

offenses in a single proceeding. In this case, numbered 06-08-00096-CR (trial cause number

36,392-A), Guice was convicted of sexual assault. Guice pled guilty to the offense. The issue of

punishment was tried to the trial court, which sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment in this

case, to run concurrently with the sentences in the other two cases.1

On appeal, Guice raises two contentions of error. First, he argues that the trial court

committed reversible error by failing to consider the entire range of punishment for the offense, and

second, that the punishment imposed violated the right against cruel and unusual punishment.

We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on his appeal in cause number

06-08-00095-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we affirm the judgment. 

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: December 22, 2008

Date Decided: December 23, 2008

Do Not Publish
No. 72-6220.

#### Eckert *v.*Pennsylvania.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### TATE v. STATE.

No. 25474.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 14, 1951.

*585No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated, with the penalty assessed at a fine of $100’.

The record brought forward contains no statement of facts or bill of exception. The proceedings appear regular in every respect and nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                                  OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                                8,440
<SECURITIES>                                                         17,114
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         1,477
<ALLOWANCES>                                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     20,949
<PP&E>                                                                  413
<DEPRECIATION>                                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       27,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 3,623
<BONDS>                                                                 200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                                  7
<OTHER-SE>                                                           23,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         27,593
<SALES>                                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      1,339
<CGS>                                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                           452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     (3,173)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 (3,173)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        (3,173)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        (0.47)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        (0.47)
<FN>
<F1> EPS BASIC
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                               REMEDY CORPORATION
 
                           COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME
                     PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                MARCH 31,
                                                                           -------------------
                                                                            1997        1996
                                                                           -------     -------
<S>                                                                        <C>         <C>
PRIMARY:
  Weighted average number of common shares outstanding...................   26,973      25,900
  Incremental common shares attributable to shares issuable under
     employee stock plans................................................    3,402       3,686
                                                                           -------     -------
          Total shares...................................................   30,375      29,586
                                                                           =======     =======
Net income:
  Amount.................................................................  $ 4,785     $ 2,267
                                                                           =======     =======
  Per share..............................................................  $  0.16     $  0.08
                                                                           =======     =======
FULLY DILUTED:
  Weighted average number of common shares outstanding...................   26,973      25,900
  Incremental common shares attributable to shares issuable under
     employee stock plans................................................    3,402       3,898
                                                                           -------     -------
          Total shares...................................................   30,375      29,798
                                                                           =======     =======
Net income:
  Amount.................................................................  $ 4,785     $ 2,267
                                                                           =======     =======
  Per share..............................................................  $  0.16     $  0.08
                                                                           =======     =======
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. RICKY L. MILLER, JR., Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 181 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 18th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVID COURTNEY , 1
Petitioner Below, Appellant,

v. CHRISTINE ACOSTA , Respondent Below, Appellee. § § § No. 66 , 20 2 2 § § Court Below: Family Court § of the State of Delaware § § File No

. CN 15

- 01320 § Petition No. 2 1

- 15330 § §
Submitted: June 14 , 20 2 2 Decided: June 2 7 , 20 2 2
ORDER (1) O n April 20, 2022 , the Senior Court Clerk sent a letter directing the appellant to pay the Family Court filing fee and transcript cost on or before May 5,
2022 , or this Court would issue a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be
dismissed. On May 6 , 202 2 , the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice , sent by certified mail, directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed
for th e appellant’s failure to pay the Family Court filing fee and transcript cost

. On May 26, 2022, the Senior Court Clerk issued a second notice, sent by certified mail, directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for the app ellant’s failure to pay the Family Court filing fee and transcript cost.

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).2

(2) On June 3 , 202 2 , the Court received the certified mail receipt indicating
that the notice to show cause had been delivered on June 1 , 202 2 . A timely response
to the notice to show cause was due on or before June 13 , 202 2

. The appellant having failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the required ten

- day period, dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed.
N OW, THEREFORE, IT IS OR DERED, under Supreme Court Rule s 3(b)
and 29(b) , that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:

/ s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. Justice
EXHIBIT
        32.1
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS
        PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Hyperdynamics Corporation
        (Hyperdynamics), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006, as
        filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Kent P. Watts,
        Chief
        Executive Officer of Hyperdynamics, does hereby certify, pursuant to 906
        of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to his knowledge:
 
 (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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:
        February 20, 2007
 
 By:
              /s/
                  Kent P. WattsKent
                  P. WattsChief
                  Executive Officer
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*LEEROY HARRIS

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 717 (AC 17081), is denied.

*923
      *Alexander H. Schwartz,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Susann E. Gill,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided July 8, 1998

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6518

RANDOLPH ASHFORD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. MICHAEL STEPHAN , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 0:18

- cv - 01262

- JFA )

Submitted : October 23, 2019 Decided: October 25, 2019

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Randolph Ashford , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Randolph Ashford seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this sta ndard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When t he district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 8 5. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ashford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ashford’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Ashford’s motions for single

- judge consideration, to appoint counsel, and to hold his case in abeyance. Finally, we deny as
moot Ashford’s motion for release pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Take notice that on January 27, 2000 Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing, as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets:

Thirty-third Revised Sheet No. 10

Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 10A

Twenty-ninth Revised Sheet No. 11

Twenty-first Revised Sheet No. 11A

Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 11B

Thirty-first Revised Sheet No. 12

Tenth Revised Sheet No. 12A

Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 15

Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 16

Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 17

                    Texas Gas states that this filing is made to implement the provisions of Article XI, Section 1(a), of the Offer of Settlement and Explanatory Statement in Docket No. RP97-344,                     *et al.,*                     and, as presented in the referenced Appendix D, page 2, of said Settlement, Texas Gas, in the instant filing, proposes to reflect the unit rate reductions, effective March 1, 2000, resulting from the termination of the ANR X-153 contract. The attached tariff sheets reflect reductions to the NNS and FT demand rates of ($0.0025), NNS and FT commodity rates of ($0.0009), SGT rates of ($0.0059), and IT rates of ($0.0034).                

Texas Gas states that copies of this filing have been served upon all of Texas Gas's jurisdiction customers, all parties on the Commission's official service list in this proceeding, interested state commissions, and the FERC Staff.

Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-2786  Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M