alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Martin , Michae l (OST) QO ' ~ CSV

- ^004

- \C\L, ' ^ ^
From : Martin , Michae l (OST ) Sent : Monday , January24 , 2011 11:2 4 A M To : 'ofe@Mayaguezpr.gov ' Cc : 'Cap e Air , Andre wBonney' ; 'kvogler@seaborneairlines.com' ; 'Ai rSunsliine , Inc.' ; Devany , Denni s (OST) ; 'Jerry.Garcia@CapeAir.com' ; 'Richar d Stanto n (rstanton@prfaa.com) ' Subject : EA S ai rcarrie rproposal s a t Mayaguez , P R Attachments : Ai rSunshin e Mayague z 2011 proposal.pdf ; Cap e Ai rMayague z EA S proposa l v2 1 JAN1 1 .pdf ; Seaborn e Airline s fo rMayague z 201 1 .pd f
Everyone :
I woul d lik e t o updat e yo u o n th e essentia l ai rservic e (EAS) situatio n a t Mayaguez , an d giv e yo u a n opportunit yt o offe r an ycomment s o n th e recor d befor e w e submi t a recommendatio n t o th e Assistan t Secretaryfo rAviatio n an d Internationa l Affairs , Th e curren t EA S contrac t a t you rcommunit yexpire s Apri l 30 , 2011 , an d i n anticipatio n o fthat , w e issue d Orde r2010-12-31 , Decembe r23 , 2010 , solicitin g proposal s fro m carrier s intereste d i n providin g subsidize d EA S fo ra new , two-yea rperiod , beginnin g Ma y1 , 2011

. I n respons e t o ou rrequest , thre e airline s submitte d proposals : Ai r Sunshine , Cap e Air , an d Seaborn e Airlines

. I hav e attache d eac h carrier' s proposa l fo ryou rreview

. W e reques t tha t yo u revie wth e proposal s an d submi t an ycomment s yo u ma yhav e soo n as possible , bu t n o late rtha n Thursdav

. Februar

y17

. Pleas e sen d you rcomment s vi a e-mai l t o EAS@dot.gov

. I fyo u hav e an yquestions , fee l fre e t o contac t me

. Regards , ;;;: ;

' > O Michae l Marti n —' Unite d State s Departmen t o fTransportatio n ~ Q Offic e o fAviatio n An a lysi s ^ Essentia l Ai rServic e (EAS) an d Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Progra m (SCASDP ) " 

### (202 ) 366-649 4 e n" ^
# e	 • STATE OF NEVADA Jim Gibbons, Gomnor Department ofConservation & Natural Resources AI." 8icJai, Director DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Leo M Orozdoff. PoE., Administrator April 9, 2010 Rick 

### Greenwood Director, Corporate EHES Southern California Edison 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue**R~sernead,** CA 91770 Re: Request to TerminateClass I Air Quality Operating PermitAP4911-0774, FIN AOO13; Mohave Geaerating Statloa (MGS) Dear Mr. Greenwood: The Nevada Division ofEnvironmental Protection, Bureau ofAir Pollution Control (NDEPBAPC) received your letter dated April 7, 2010 requesting tennination ofthe Class I Air Quality Operating Pennit, No.**AP4911~774,** FIN Aoo13. The Mohave Generating Station has ceased all operations related to generation ofelectricity from burning coal. Based on the April 7, 2010 letter, all remaining operations have received their air quality operating permits from Clark CountyDepartment ofAir Quality and Environmental Management. Additionally, Mohave Generating Station has received their Operating Permit to Construct No. AP4911-2627 establishing the emission reduction credits for the permanent shut-down and dismantling ofthe main steam boilers. Based on the above, the NDEP-BAPC hereby approves Southern CaliforniaEdison's request to terminate Air Quality Operating Permit No. AP4911-o774. In accordance with Nevada Revised Statute 445B.34O, you may appeal the department's action within 10 days afteryou receive this notice oftermination. Appeals may be filed with the State Environmental Commission, 901 South Stewart Street, Suite 4001, Carson City, Nevada, 89701-5249, telephone 775-687-9308. Ifyou have any questions, please call me at 775-687-9391. Sincerely,

# ~~:£P.E. Supervisor, Bureau ofAir Pollution Control

cc: Tina Gingras, CCAQMD Gerardo Rios, Chief(A-S-I), U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 Certified Mail No. 7008 1140 0004 4029 8338 

# . "" .' 

# .

90 I S. SteWart Street,Suite 400I • Carson City. Nevada 8970I • p: 775.687.4670 • f: 775.687.5856 • _.ndep.nv.gov

",- lOtooqdolI_,
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 444 

Honoring the life and achievements of Prince. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 27, 2016 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. FRANKEN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life and achievements of Prince. 

Whereas Prince Rogers Nelson (referred to in this preamble 

as ‘‘Prince’’) was born on June 7, 1958, in Minneapolis, 

Minnesota; 

Whereas Prince developed an interest in music at an early 

age and wrote his first song at the age of 7 years; 

Whereas Prince pioneered the Minneapolis sound, which is a 

mixture of funk, rock, and pop that emerged in the late 

1970s and 1980s and influenced music for decades; 

Whereas Prince and his band, the Revolution, shot many 

scenes of the classic film ‘‘Purple Rain’’ at First Avenue, 

making the downtown Minneapolis music venue a landmark; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 444 ATS 

Whereas Prince was a superstar composer, an amazing performer, and a music innovator with a fierce belief in the 

independence of his art; 

Whereas Prince— 

(1) sold more than 100,000,000 records worldwide; 

(2) released 39 studio albums; 

(3) had 5 number 1 Billboard hits; and 

(4) had 40 singles in the top 100 songs; 

Whereas Prince won 7 Grammy Awards, an Academy Award, 

and a Golden Globe Award; 

Whereas Prince was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of 

Fame in 2004, the first year in which Prince was eligible 

for induction; 

Whereas in 2010, Prince accepted a Black Entertainment 

Television Lifetime Achievement Award; 

Whereas Prince wrote songs about Minnesota sports teams, 

including ‘‘Purple and Gold’’ during the Minnesota Viking’s run to the 2010 National Football Conference 

championship game, and held a concert for the Minnesota 

Lynx after the Minnesota Lynx won their third Women’s 

National Basketball Association championship; 

Whereas even after all of his success, Prince still called the 

State of Minnesota home and never lost the sense that 

he was a beloved son, a neighbor, and the superstar next 

door; 

Whereas Prince reminded the people of the United States 

that ‘‘there’s a world waiting for us after this life, a 

world of never ending happiness, where you can always 

see the sun, day or night’’; and 

Whereas on April 21, 2016, Prince passed away at his Paisley Park Estate in Chanhassen, Minnesota, leaving beVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:30 Apr 27, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR444.ATS SR444

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 444 ATS 

hind millions of fans and a legacy of music that touched 

hearts, opened minds, and made the people of the United 

States want to dance: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate honors the life of Prince 

2 Rogers Nelson and his achievements as a musician, com3 poser, innovator, and cultural icon. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                     MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Edward B. Lipkin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Property
Analysts Master Limited Partnership;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: November 11, 2005

By: EBL&S, Inc., its managing general partner


By: /s/ Edward B. Lipkin
    ------------------------------------
Name: Edward B. Lipkin
Title: President


                                       13
EXHIBIT 32.1 
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Express Credit Corporation (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
Christopher S. Forno, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                       
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company.

|                         |  |                         
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------
|/s/Christopher
 S. Forno
|                        
|Name:                    |  | Christopher
 S. Forno   
|Title:                   |  | Chief
 Executive Officer
|Date:                    |  | March 30,
 2009         

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This
certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except
to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated
by reference in any such filing.

A signed
original 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.

---
#### SAMUEL S. WOODLEY *v.*H. A. GILLIAM.

A suit to recover the possession of land is *a civil action,*and not *a special proceeding; therefore,*the summons (by the act of 1868-’69, e. 76,) is returnable to term time, and not before the Clark.

(Tate v. *Powe, arde*644, approved.)

Ciyil ACTION to recover possession of land, tried before *Jones, J.,*at Spring Term 1870, of Washington Court.

Tbe summons was returned before the Clerk, and the defendant having demurred to the complaint for want of jurisdiction, the action was dismissed; upon an 'appeal to the-Judge, this ruling was reversed; and the defendant appealed to this Court.

*Smith,*for the appellant.

*Collins & Armisteacl, contra.*

Bodman, J.

The question whether an action to recover the possession of land, is a civil action, within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Act of 186S-’69, ch.. 76, p. 189, so as to require the summons to be returned in term time, — or, is a special proceeding, as distinguished from what is termed in the Code a civil action, so that the summons may be returnable before the Clerk at any time, is decided in *Tate*v. *Powe, ante*644. Personally, I do not quite approve of the manner in which the line of distinction is drawn in that case. I think those actions are special proceedings, in which *existing*statutes direct a procedure different from the ordinary. In practice, the two lines will almost always co-incide, but this seems to me the most convenient.

On any principle of distinction such an action as this must be deemed a civil action. The mention by the Code Com-*650nuissioners, in their Beport, of the action of ejectment as one -of those in which some legislative provision of special proceeding would probably be found necessary, no doubt indicated the opinion of the Commissioners, and their intention to present some such provision to the General Assembly for its consideration. It may be that for the same reasons which caused the introduction of the modern action of ejectment in lien of the old action of *ejections firmes,*the Legislature may yet find it expedient to provide some special proceeding for such a case. But hitherto they have not done so. There was error in the opinion of the Judge : the demurrer must be overruled. ' The defendant will recover costs in this Court. Let this opinion be certified.

Per Curiam. Beversed.
<Page>


                                  EXHIBIT 12.2
                            AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
          COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                              (Dollars in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Years Ended December 31,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2004     2003     2002     2001     2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Earnings:
   Pretax income from continuing operations   $4,951   $4,247   $3,727   $1,596   $3,908
   Interest expense                            1,659    1,606    1,832    2,856    2,922
   Other adjustments                             154      157      174      175      163
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total earnings (a)                            $6,764   $6,010   $5,733   $4,627   $6,993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fixed charges:
   Interest expense                           $1,659   $1,606   $1,832   $2,856   $2,922
   Other adjustments                             145      140      151      170      165
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total fixed charges (b)                       $1,804   $1,746   $1,983   $3,026   $3,087
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (a/b)        3.75     3.44     2.89     1.53     2.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>

Included in interest expense in the above computation is interest expense
related to the international banking operations of American Express Company
(American Express) and Travel Related Services' cardmember lending activities,
which is netted against net investment income and cardmember lending net finance
charge revenue, respectively, in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

For purposes of the earnings computation, other adjustments include adding the
amortization of capitalized interest, the net loss of affiliates accounted for
under the equity method whose debt is not guaranteed by American Express, the
minority interest in the earnings of majority-owned subsidiaries with fixed
charges, and the interest component of rental expense and subtracting
undistributed net income of affiliates accounted for under the equity method.

For purposes of the fixed charges computation, other adjustments include
capitalized interest costs and the interest component of rental expense.
North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

MEETING OF NAIMA WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

EPA Wednes day

, A ugust 31, 2011

Research Triangle Park, NC 2 : 00 P M

– 4 : 0 0 PM (Eastern)

..................................................................................................................... AGENDA

1. Review of NA IMA’s Antitrust Guidelines

– A ngus Crane (Attachment)

2. Introductions and Opening Remarks

– Angus Crane

3. Presentation of Data on Chrome Content of Refractories and Chrome Emission

a. Chrome Content of Bricks

 Background O n Refractories

b. Oxy Fuel / Gas Furnaces Dis tinct From Other Fiber Glass Furnaces

 Subcategorization

c. Preserving MACT Non

- Applicability for Other Furnaces

– E xemption F or

Companies That Have Converted To Non

- Phenolic Binder

 Major Source Applicability

4. Discuss Oxy Fuel Furnaces

a. BACT Used on All Furnace s

b. Level of Risk

c. MACT Floor

d. Options

 Furnaces Exempted That Do Not Exceed Risk Threshold

 Chrome Content

 Threshold Limit

5. Presentation of Formaldehyde Data

6. October 2011

– Federal Register Notice of Proposal

a. 60 or 90 Day Comment Period

7. HF or HCl?

a. Not a Risk Driver

8. Other Issues

9. Adjournment
*District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting

by designation.

**Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50827

 

KURT CHADWELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

VIRGIL YANTA; VIRGIL YANTA, PC,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, Waco

W-00-CV-321

 

October 4, 2002

Before SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges, and ENGELHARDT*,

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

Plaintiff-Appellant Kurt Chadwell appeals from the dismissal

of his Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) claim seeking overtime

compensation from the appellees, his former employers.

Specifically, Chadwell claims that although he was hired as an
2

attorney he spent 20% of his time performing sub-professional tasks

(e.g., answering his own telephone, interviewing witnesses), thus

he is not an exempt professional under the FLSA and is entitled to

overtime compensation, and he also claims that the district court

erred in relying on the parties’ affidavits converting the Rule 12b

dismissal motion into a summary judgment proceeding without proper

notice. We have reviewed the record and briefs and arguments

advanced by the parties and, after conducting our own de novo

review, conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing

appellant’s claim. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10K
FOR SEPTEMBER 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000003146
<NAME> ALABAMA GAS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      276,533
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        394
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          90,012
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         7,467
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 374,406
<COMMON>                                            20
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       34,484
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             95,044
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 129,548
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           125,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 119,858
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  374,406
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      357,252
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             9,047
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     321,982
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     331,029
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         26,223
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 323
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  26,546
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         9,585
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,961
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   16,961
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         9,555
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        7,390
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          34,333
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EARNINGS PER SHARE IS CALCULATED FOR ENERGEN CORPORATION (PARENT COMPANY OF
ALAGASCO) AND IS NOT CALCULATED FOR ALAGASCO SEPARATELY AS AMOUNT WOULD NOT BE
MEANINGFUL.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>