alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Parker Richard [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 10:31 AM

To: Hirsch, Bruce R

Cc: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Bruce Smith;

Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; ClarkSilcox;

Creevy, Jim; DanCohen; Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter;

Greg Rosenquist; JamesLass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; JerrySchoen; Joanna

Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughl in; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; MattMiller;

Matthew Nardotti; Meg Waltner; Meyers,Aaron; Mi chael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil

Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; RobertBerman;

Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Be ck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock;

Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; Hirsch, Bruce R

Subject: Re: Amorphous Core Experience at BGE



### Thanks, Bruce, for this helpful information.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:16 PM, "Hirsch, Bruce R" < Bruce.R.Hirsch@bge.com > wrote:

This is just a single Company’s experience with amorphous core transformers. Please note that based on

this data we have NOT ruled out using amorphous steel in our transformers, however, the numbers are

troubling.

BGE owns 2,770 transformers with amorphous steel cores. Most are three phase units purchased in the

mid to late 80’s.

Of that number, 201 have failed in service. The cause of failure is not known but to be considered a

failure the probability is that either the core or coil failed. This represents an 7% failure rate.

The average age of the failed amorphous core transformers is 10.97 years.

The average age of failed transformers for BGE’s entire fleet is 29.4 years.

BGE has over 216,000 transformers in the fleet, thus the quantity of amorphous core transformers

represents 1.4% of the total.

While we could debate the cause of failure for any particular class or design of transformer, the average

age to failure date is a good apples to apples comparison of the performance of the transformers since

the exact same criteria was used across the board.Hope this information, along with other user responses is helpful in the decision making process.

Bruce



### >>> This e-mail and any attachments ar e confidential, may contain legal,

professional or other privileged inform ation, and are intended solely for the

addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use the information

in this e-mail in any way, delete this e-mail and notify the sender. CEG-IP2
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 407

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative

to the free exercise of religion.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 12, 1994

Mr. MONTGOMERY introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relative to the free exercise of religion.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States:
2

•HJ 407 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘The right of citizens of the United States to the free

3 exercise of religion shall not be denied or abridged by the

4 United States or by any State.’’.

Æ
H. J. Res. 415

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

Joint Resolution

Designating the week beginning October 16, 1994, as ‘‘National Penny Charity

Week’’.

Whereas 170 billion pennies—$1.7 billion—are circulating in the

economy;

Whereas financial institutions, merchants, and retail establishments are reporting a shortage of pennies;

Whereas this shortage is a result of American people hoarding

their pennies;

Whereas, during fiscal year 1994, the United States Mint will

spend $1.64 million to produce 13.3 billion pennies in order to

counter the effect of hoarding;

Whereas donating hoarded pennies to charities provides the charities with funds, diminishes the shortage of pennies, lowers the

demand on the United States Mint to produce additional pennies,

and ultimately saves the United States Treasury money;

Whereas Penny Lover’s of America is a not-for-profit charitable

organization that seeks to promote character, scholarship, and

patriotism among America’s youth by collecting penny donations

to finance their educational pursuits;

Whereas Penny Lover’s of America is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year by conducting a penny recycling campaign; and

Whereas ‘‘National Penny Charity Week’’ coincides with Penny

Lover’s of America’s ‘‘National Penny Campaign Recycling

Project’’ both of which will assist in alleviating the penny shortage

and raise funds for charitable and community causes: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President

is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation designating

the week of October 16, 1994, as ‘‘National Penny Charity Week’’

and to call on the people of the United States to observe such

week with appropriate ceremonies and activities, including the

donation of pennies to charities, particularly to those which provide
H. J. Res. 415—2

direct services to the Nation’s underprivileged and disadvantaged

population, and to worthy community causes.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### HAWLEY v. STATE.

No. 25931.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 22, 1952.

*934William C. McDonald, San Angelo, for appellant.

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

DAVlIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area, with punishment assessed at a fine of $1,000.

The information alleged a prior conviction in the following language, viz.:

> “And the grand jurors do further present that prior to the commission of the aforesaid offense by the said Ben Hawley, to-wit, on the 23rd day of October, A.D.1951, in the county court of Motley County, Texas, the said Ben Hawley was duly and legally convicted in said last named court of an offense of like character as that hereinbefore charged against him in this cause, upon an information then legally pending in said .last named court, and of which the said court had jurisdiction 1⁄8 3⁄8 ‡ »

Appellant moved to quash such count as being vague, indefinite, and uncertain. He also objected to the trial court’s submitting the question of enhancement of punishment to the jury under the allegation.

The motion to quash should have been sustained. This court held in Waltrip v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 202, 114 S.W.2d 5S5, that an allegation in almost tire exact language as that here employed was subject to the objection of indefiniteness.

The trial court charged the jury that Motley 'County was a dry area and that the sale of intoxicating liquor had been prohibited therein by a valid subsisting local option election. Appellant duly excepted to such charge as being, among other reasons, upon the weight of the evidence.

The charge was subject to the objection, because there was a direct dispute in the evidence as to whether the proof showed proper publication of the order putting local option into effect. Sweeten v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 445, 120 S.W.2d 1074.

The witness Cargile, to whom it was alleged appellant sold the pint of whisky, failed, in his testimony, to make a positive identification of the appellant as the person who sold him the whisky.

The appellant, in cross-examination, made no effort to impeach the witness, or to prove statements by him contradictory of his testimony.

In this condition of the testimony, the state, in the development of its case in chief, was permitted, over the objection of the appellant, to prove by the foreman of the grand jury that the witness Cargile testified before the grand jury during the investigation of the case that he did purchase the whisky.

This testimony was objected to as hearsay and an attempt to bolster the witness by contradictory statements.

The appellant did not testify as a witness, nor did he offer any testimony contradictory to the testimony of the witness Car-gile.

The testimony was subject to the objection urged. 18 Tex.Jur., p. 132, Sec. 64, and authorities there cited.

The argument of state’s counsel complained of will not likely arise upon another trial and, for that reason, will not be discussed.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
----

Action brought on 20 August 2004 by Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-345/04)

(2004/C 262/102)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 August 2004 by the Italian Republic

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the following decisions:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

This action has been brought against the memoranda of the European Commission of 17 June 2004 No D (2004) 4074 (DOCUP Regione Lombardia) and of 14 July 2004 No JE/OA D (2004) 5446 (DOCUP Friuli Venezia Giulia), both of which seek to subject the procedure for the payment of advances in the context of aid schemes to conditions which are not required by the legislation in force with the purpose of limiting improperly the expenditure which is eligible for the use of the structural funds concerned.

In support of its claims, the Italian Republic alleges:

Further to the breach of the obligation to provide reasons, the applicant also claims that the contested memoranda were not adopted in accordance with the correct procedure provided by the Commission's rules of procedure.

----
#### BRYANT v. STATE.

No. 26154.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for possession of marihuana, the jury having assessed the punishment at eight years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-13-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,316,835
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     85,663
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,713,098
<PP&E>                                       6,163,549
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,271,040
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,177,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          991,374
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,229,195
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,571,139)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,177,085
<SALES>                                      3,720,550
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,720,550
<CGS>                                        1,124,459
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,905,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               622,314
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (821,336)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (821,336)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (821,336)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:22-cr-00057-H-BU Document 26 Filed 12/12/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 56
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 338

To designate October 1994 as ‘‘National Decorative Painting Month’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1994

Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas introduced the following joint resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate October 1994 as ‘‘National Decorative Painting

Month’’.

Whereas decorative painters preserve and continue the ancient discipline of decorative painting; and

Whereas decorative painters engage in numerous worthwhile

philanthropic activities in communities across the United

States: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That October 1994 is designated as ‘‘National Decorative

4 Painting Month’’, and the President of the United States
2

•HJ 338 IH

1 is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling

2 upon the people of the United States to observe such week

3 with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, David W. Qualls, Chief Financial Officer of Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (Section 906) that, based on my knowledge:



(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and



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



|                      |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  | 
|Dated: August 8, 2003 |  |  | 
|                      |  |  | 
|                      |  |  | 



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
Registrant and will be retained by Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1998
<CASH>                                          11,076
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,580
<INVENTORY>                                     18,387
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,808
<PP&E>                                         140,845
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 161,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,975
<BONDS>                                         48,362
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           272
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   161,189
<SALES>                                         39,220
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,220
<CGS>                                           55,508
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,247
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (27,220)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        12
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (27,232)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,232)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.34)
        

</TABLE>
#### SUTTON v. STATE.

No. 21902.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 11, 1942.

*787M. L. Walters, Jr., of Jefferson, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of having in her possession an illicit alcoholic beverage in a container to which no tax stamp showing the payment of the tax had been affixed, and no evidence that it had been paid.

The record is before us without hills of exception and statement of facts. We find nothing for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
### Finamore , Rober t(OST )

From : Romanow , Jos h [romanow@pillsburylaw.com ' Sent : Monday , Marc h 21 , 201 1 10:16A M To : Finamore , Robert(OST) ; Park , Ann a Subject : RE : Calim a

Bob , Thank s fo ryou remail
. 

### ^P^: ^ 

## ' J Yes , w e ar e als o requestin g th e authorit yt o operat e othe rcharter s unde rPar t21 2 prio rapprova l re^irerhents
. W e als o inten d t o fil e th e Famil ySupportPla n thi s week
. Man ythank s - Jos h

From : Robert.Finamore@dot.QO vfmailtoiRobert.Finamore^dot.gov l Sent : Monday , Marc h 21 , 201 1 10:0 9 A M To : Romanow , Josh ; Park , Ann a Subject : Calim a Goo d Mornin g Jos h & Anna , I' m workin g o n th e Calim a applicatio n an d jus twante d t o follow-u p a coupl e o fmatter s wit h you . I se e tha t th e reques tfo rcharte rauthorit ycover s th e followin g operations : 1 ) behin d th e EU , vi a th e E U an d intermediat e points , t o th e U.S

. an d beyond : 2 ) U.S.-ECAAcharters ; 3 ) 7* ^ freedo m carg o charters ; an d 4 ) charte rtransportatio n tha t ma yresul t fro m futur e additiona l rights
. I assum e tha tyou' d als o lik e fo ru s t o gran tth e carrie rauthorit yt o perfor m "othe r charter s subjec tt o th e prio rapprova l requirement s se tfort h i n 1 4 CF R Par t212" , t o cove ran yT" " freedo m passenge r charte roperations ? Also , I se e tha tth e carrie rpropose s t o us e aircraf ttha twoul d requir e submissio n ofa Famil ySupportPlan
. I jus twante d t o chec k t o ensur e tha tyo u pla n t o fil e on e becaus e I' d lik e t o b e prepare d t o mov e forwar d onc e th e commen tperio d i s completed
. Thanks , Bo b

Rober tJ
. Finamor

e U.S

. Departmen to fTransporfatio n Offic e o fInternationa l Aviation , X-4 5 Phone : (202)366-240 5 Fax:(202)366-369 4
#### Frederick A. Brown, Appellant, v Samalin & Bock, P. C., et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered May 18, 1989, which granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing his cause of action for lost profits.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this legal malpractice action, the plaintiff claims that the negligence of the defendants in representing him concerning a real estate contract caused him to lose anticipated profits. He claims that because of the defendants’ negligence he was not able to enforce his contract for the purchase of certain property which he planned to subdivide in order to realize a profit. *532However, we agree with the defendants’ argument that this claim is too speculative and incapable of being proven with any reasonable certainty *(see, Kenford, Co. v County of Erie,*67 NY2d 257). The plaintiff had no experience in real estate development, and his financing was questionable. Furthermore, there is no evidence that he would have been able to obtain permission to subdivide the property into a sufficient number of building lots to make subdivision profitable. Thus, the court properly granted partial summary judgment on the lost profits cause of action, since, as a matter of law, it was too speculative to support a recovery *(see, Grow Tunneling Corp. v Consolidated Edison Co.,*157 AD2d 452; *Hirsch Elec. Co. v Community Servs.,*145 AD2d 603).

Further, the granting of partial summary judgment was proper, since the plaintiff did not adequately oppose the motion with the expert evidence which the issues warranted *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557; *Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp.,*34 NY2d 338; *Kratter v Weintraub,*97 AD2d 491). Kooper, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### HORTON v. STATE.

No. 22272.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 11, 1942.

Morris Watson, of' Roby, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*740KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is theft of cattle. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

The i-ecord is before us without any bills of exception or statement of facts. The indictment seems to be in due form; hence there is nothing presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0501 Directorate ID: 2009-SW-083-AD

Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. Model A109E and Model A109S Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 90 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to detect missing spacer rivets, 

which could allow the metallic spacers to rotate and lead to damage and failure of the main drive 

shaft, and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $10 for rivets

$20,824 to replace the main drive shaft

Labor per Helicopter

(.25 x $85/work-hour to 

inspect the lower 

semichannel assembly)

(3 x $85/work-hour to 

inspect for missing rivets)

(4 x $85/work-hour to 

inspect the main drive 

shaft)

(4 x $85/work-hour to 

replace the main drive 

shaft)

$21

$255

$340

$340

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $

Total US Fleet Cost $

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Jim Grigg