alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit        32(a)**

| (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,                Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                  Thomas M. Patrick                    |   | December                  29, 2006 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|                                                      |   | Date                               |
| Thomas                  M. Patrick                        |   |                               |
| Chairman                  of the Board,                   |   |                               |
| President                  and Chief Executive Officer of |   |                               |
| Peoples                  Energy Corporation               |   |                               |

| /s/                  Thomas M. Patrick                                |   | December                  29, 2006 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|                                                                  |   | Date                               |
| Thomas                  M. Patrick                                    |   |                               |
| Chairman                  of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of |   |                               |
| The                  Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company               |   |                               |
|                                                                  |   |                               |

| /s/                  Thomas M. Patrick                                |   | December                  29, 2006 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|                                                                  |   | Date                               |
| Thomas                  M. Patrick                                    |   |                               |
| Chairman                  of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of |   |                               |
| North                  Shore Gas Company                              |   |                               |
|                                                                  |   |                               |
p. 1



# OAR Box 1837 Prepped byKeeiaRichards



### Document

Number: 

# 170 ) IV-C-1 0 Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 11/14/20083:48:11 PM Sheet 170of 238

# J P. 2 

# &MX

| WT Z? UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y- * ^ V \ ^ /

WASHINGTON . DC . 2046 0 

### JU L

### I 5 198

8 OFFIC KO F QOTECT^O* ' CtNtdALCOUNII L Josep hJ . Breche r Attorne ya t La w 50 6 15t hStree t Oakland , Californi a 9461 2 Re : Propose d Regulatio no f Surfac e Coa l Mine s Dea r Mr . Brecher : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r lette r regardin g EPA' s pendin g proposa l t o regulat e surfac e coa l mine s unde r th e ne wsourc e revie wprovision s o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . Sinc e th e tim e o f ora l argumen t i n Sierr a Clu bv . Thomas , No . 86-113 4 (D.C . Cir.) , EP Aha s revise d it s projection s a s t o th e expecte d completio n dat e fo r th e stri p mine s rulemaking . Thi s revisio n i s du e i n par t t o th e pres s o f other , high-priorit y rulemakin g projects , manyo f whic har e subjec t t o court-ordere d deadlines , and t o limitation s o nAgenc yresources . I t i s als o attributabl e i n par t t o th e nee d fo r additiona l consideratio no f th e man ydifficul t an d comple xissue s a t stak e i nthi s rulemaking , includin g th e action s o f othe r agencies . I n particular , sinc e ora l argumen t i nSierr a Clu bv . Thomas , th e Departmen t o f Interio r (DOI ) ha s publishe d a proposa l t o regulat e fugitiv e dus t fro mroad s a t surfac e coa l mines , includin g dus t generate d b yth e movemen t o f equipment . Se e 5 2 Fed . Reg . 42258 , 4226 2 (Nov . 3 , 1987) . A s discusse d i nth e attache d lette r commentin g o nth e DO I proposal , EP Abelieve s tha t th e prospectiv e roa d dus t rul e represent s a nexcellen t opportunit yt o protec t land s i nth e vicinit y"of minin g operation s b yminimizin g a majo r portio no f particulat e matte r emissions . Accordingly , EP Abelieve s tha t th e outcom e o f th e DO I rulemakin g i s highl yrelevan t t o EPA' s fina l actio no nit s ow nproposal . I not e tha t th e mos t recen t semiannua l regulator yagend a project s fina l actio n o n th e DO I roa d dus t rul e i nJun e 1988 , and project s fina l actio n o n EPA' s stri p mine s rulemakin g fo r Octobe r 1988 . Se e 5 3 Fed . Reg . 1394 7 an d 1439 2 (Apri l 25 , 1988) . However , thes e date s ar e merel yestimates , and becaus e o f th e manyvariable s involved , I a munabl e t o specif ya firmdat e fo r EPA' s fina l action . Indeed , DO I apparentl yha s no t me t it s Jun e

# J P. 3



### - 2 - 198 8 targe t date . I n addition , I hav e bee n informe d b yth e Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standard s tha t the EP Adat e i n th e regulatoryagend a ha s bee nsubjec t t o furthe r change , an d tha t the Agenc yno wanticipate s tha t i t wil l tak e fina l actio n i n mid-1989 . Nevertheless , I can advis e yo u tha t EP Ai s continuing t o work on thi s matter . Sincerely , Jregor y B \Foote , Attorne y Ai r an dRadiatio nDivisio n Attachmen t
**Skip to main content** Be n & Je rr y’ s

**• •**  **•**

**• Home**  **• Values**  **• How We Do Business**  **• Cleaner Greener Freezers** C le an er , G re en er Fr ee ze rs **A cool solution to reducing the climate impacts of refrigeration.**  Same Freezability, Friendlier Refrigerants **At Ben & Jerry’s we’re always looking for ways to r educe our**  **environmental impact -- including the climate impact from the**  **many thousands of freezer cabinets you’ll find stoc ked with Ben**  **& Jerry’s in stores everywhere. In December 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection**  **Agency (EPA) approved our petition for the commercial use**  **of hydrocarbon (HC) freezers in the U.S.**  **HC freezers are significantly more energy-efficient and use a**  **natural hydrocarbon refrigerant with lower global w arming**  **potential than the hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refriger ants**  **commonly used in US freezers, so the EPA approval i s good**  **news for the environment. A side benefit: HC freeze rs are**  **cheaper to run than standard freezers, so we have h igh hopes that**  **other companies will come to realize our subversive plot to save**  **the environment includes some pretty nifty cost-sav ings, too. In**  **Europe, HC freezers are already in widespread use, including**  **many that contain Ben & Jerry's ice cream.** 

## Page **1 of**  **1 Cleaner Greener Freezers | Ben & Jerry**  **’ s** 

**7/ 9/** **2014 http://www.benjerry.com/values/how**  **- we**  **- do**  **- business/cleaner**  **- greener**  **- freezers**
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     7
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     Registrant's unaudited consolidated financial statements for the three
     months ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
     to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001013698
<NAME>                        Symons International Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1 
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>           146,747,000
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>             146,518,000
<EQUITIES>                       23,918,000
<MORTGAGE>                        2,360,000
<REAL-ESTATE>                       461,000
<TOTAL-INVEST>                  179,525,000
<CASH>                           19,799,000
<RECOVER-REINSURE>               25,448,000
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>           12,324,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  427,120,000
<POLICY-LOSSES>                  86,287,000
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>             126,619,000
<POLICY-OTHER>                            0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                     0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                  48,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                         38,969,000
<OTHER-SE>                       26,897,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    427,120,000
<PREMIUMS>                      129,890,000
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>               2,438,000
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                  942,000
<OTHER-INCOME>                    5,038,000
<BENEFITS>                       71,533,000
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>         474,000
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>             12,538,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  11,882,000
<INCOME-TAX>                      4,286,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               7,596,000
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      5,909,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.56
<RESERVE-OPEN>                  101,719,000
<PROVISION-CURRENT>              40,951,000
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                 4,317,000
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>               17,028,000
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                 24,426,000
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                  86,287,000
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>           4,317,000
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.3

                                    AGREEMENT


         AGREEMENT dated this 3 day of November 2004, by and between
ConsultAmerica, Inc. (hereinafter "CA"), a Delaware Corporation, with offices
located at 13070 Addison Road, Roswell, Georgia 30075 and Edward A. Sundberg,
President of CA.

         WHEREAS, CA has filed a Registration Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (hereinafter the "SEC") on Form SB-2 and has
filed an Exhibit 10.2 to such Registration Statement regarding methods of
payment of offering expenses; and

         WHEREAS, such Registration Statement includes in the Liquidity section,
a specific discussion of CA's cash requirements for the next twelve (12) months
(exclusive of offering expenses) and its specific viable plans to meet such
requirements.

         NOW, THEREFORE, it is herewith agreed as follows:

         The undersigned, as President of CA herewith agrees to defer CA
compensation otherwise payable to him so as to permit CA to remain viable and
further agrees to loan CA amounts necessary to meet CA's expenses if sufficient
revenues are not generated therefore to the extent that gross profits are
insufficient to pay CA's costs and expenses. If and when loaned, the loan will
be evidenced by a non-interest bearing unsecured corporate note to be treated as
a loan until repaid, if and when CA has the financial resources to do so.

         The parties hereto understand that the above constitutes a binding
Agreement and that the contents thereof are referred to in the aforesaid
Registration Statement in the subheading entitled "Liquidity" as found in the
Management's Discussion and Analysis or Plan of Operation section.

         The above constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto.


<PAGE>




         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed as of the 3 day of November 2004.

CONSULTAMERICA, INC.


/s/
By: ________________________________
         Edward A. Sundberg, President

/s/
By: _________________________________
         Edward A. Sundberg , Individually
[4910-13-P]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1014; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-14-AD]

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Turbofan 

Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The

NPRM proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD) that had applied to all Rolls-Royce 

Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Tay 650-15 and Tay 651-54 turbofan engines. The

proposed action would have required reducing the cyclic life limits for certain highpressure turbine (HPT) disks. Accordingly, we withdraw the proposed rule.

DATES: The proposed rule published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2015 (80 FR 

32315, June 8, 2015) is withdrawn as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email: 

philip.haberlen@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD (80 FR 32315, 

June 8, 2015). The proposed AD had applied to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG 

(RRD) Tay 650-15 and Tay 651-54 turbofan engines. The NPRM proposed to reduce the 
2

cyclic life limits for certain HPT disks. The proposed action was prompted by an analysis 

that showed the need to reduce the cyclic life limits for certain HPT disks. The proposed 

actions intended to prevent failure of the HPT disk, which could result in uncontained 

disk release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

Since we issued the NPRM (80 FR 32315, June 8, 2015), additional information 

became available after the public comment period closed on August 7, 2015.

Upon further consideration, we hereby withdraw the proposed rule because we will 

propose to supersede AD 2006-18-14 (71 FR 52988, September 8, 2006).

Withdrawal of the NPRM (80 FR 32315, June 8, 2015) constitutes only such 

action, and does not preclude the agency from issuing another notice in the future, nor 

does it commit the agency to any course of action in the future.

Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking, it is neither a 

proposed nor a final rule. Therefore, Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) do 

not cover this withdrawal.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

THE WITHDRAWAL

Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. FAA-2015-1014; 

Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-14-AD, published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2015 

(80 FR 32315), is withdrawn.
3

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 20, 2015.

Colleen M. D’Alessandro,

Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.
SCEC-18-0000908

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MATTHEW S. LOPRESTI, Plaintiff,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I; SCOTT T. NAGO, as Chief Election Officer

for the State of Hawai#i; and OFFICE OF ELECTIONS, 

State of Hawai#i, Defendants.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of plaintiff Matthew S. LoPresti’s

motion for reconsideration, filed on January 30, 2019, the

declaration and attachment that were filed on February 1, 2019, 

and the record, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for

reconsideration is dismissed as untimely. See HRAP Rule 40(a)

(“A motion for reconsideration may be filed by a party only

within 10 days after the filing of the opinion, dispositional

order, or ruling unless by special leave additional time is

granted during such period by a judge or justice of the appellate

court involved.”).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 7, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCEC-18-0000908

07-FEB-2019

01:24 PM
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
financial statements contained in the Company's Form 10-QSB and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                          1,168,967
<SECURITIES>                       10,639
<RECEIVABLES>                     442,909
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                        729,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,678,733
<PP&E>                          1,451,407
<DEPRECIATION>                    212,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  5,153,896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             682,295
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                             2,613
<OTHER-SE>                       3,066,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     5,153,896
<SALES>                          4,063,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 4,154,353
<CGS>                            3,191,710
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    3,802,783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    11,812
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  84,853
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    339,758
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                339,758
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        339,758
<EPS-BASIC>                           .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15



Letter Re:  Unaudited Interim Financial Information

Aetna Inc.
Hartford, Connecticut

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration Statements No. 333-07169, 333-08427,
333-08429, 333-08431, 333-52321, 333-52321-01, 333-52321-02, 333-52321-03,
333-52321-04, and 333-52321-05.


With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated August 4, 1998 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



                                                  /s/  KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Hartford, Connecticut
August 4, 1998
#### PANHANDLE & S. F. RY. CO. v. LAWLESS.

No. 3374.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

May 7, 1936.

Terry. Cavin & Mills, of Galveston, Collins, Jackson & Snodgrass, 'of San Angelo, and Olin Blanks, of San Angelo, for appellant.

H. Womack, of McCamey, for appel-lee.

PELPHREY, Chief Justice.

This case was originally filed in the justice’s court of precinct No. 4, in Upton county, Tex., by appellee. He there sought to recover the sum of $150 alleged to be the value of two mules killed by appellant’s train. Appellant failed "to appear, and a judgment by default against it for $150 plus $20 attorney’s fees was rendered.

It later appealed the cause to the county court of Upton county, where an agreement as to pleadings was made. That agreement shows that appellee was suing appellant for alleged damages for the killing of two mules worth $150. He alleged that said mules were killed by the appellant running its motor against and over them without either ringing the bell, blowing the whistle, or making any attempt to stop before striking the mules.

Appellee also sought to recover $20 as attorney’s fees. Appellant answered by a general denial and further alleged that the .mules were running at large contrary to •the provisions of a city ordinance of the cRy of McCamey.

It is shown by the findings of facts filed herein that appellant seasonably demanded a'jury in the cause and paid the fee there;for, but that- thereafter. a judgment was rendered in the cause by the court without the intervention of a jury. . From that judgment this appeal has been prosecuted.

Opinion.

■ The 'twp propositions found in- appellant’s brief both relate to the*action of the *214trial court in rendering the judgment without the aid of a jury.

Either party in a civil case is entitled to a jury for the trial of a cause wherein an issue of fact is raised by the pleadings, upon application to the court therefor and payment of the fee. . With' the consent of the other party, one who has applied for a jury and paid the fee • may withdraw the jury and have the case tried to the court, but, without such a withdrawal or the presence of circumstances constituting a waiver of the right, a jury trial is imperative. 26 Tex.Jur. § 13, pp. 576, 577; Finnell v. Byrne (Tex.Civ.App.) 7 S.W.(2d) 139, a.nd authorities cited. The fact that the demanding party or his attorney may be absent when the case is called for trial is not sufficient to constitute a waiver, Lacroix v. Evans, 1 White & W.Civ.Cas.Ct.App. § 749.

It is apparent from what has been said that the trial court erred in rendering judgment without permitting a jury to pass upon the issues of fact which were clearly raised by . the pleadings.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.