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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund III, Ltd. at June 30, 1999, and its statement of income
for the six months then ended and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10-Q of CNL Income  Fund III,  Ltd.  for the six months  ended June 30,
1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         2,854,622<F2>
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  24,848
<ALLOWANCES>                                   6,158
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         13,110,045
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,637,561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,750,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,848,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,750,545
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               918,494
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  308,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                978,198
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            978,198
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   978,198
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Due  to the  nature  of its  industry,  CNL  Income  Fund III,  ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
<F2>Includes $1,097,485 in restricted cash.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2023007EN.01003102.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Loutsou v EUIPO (POLIS LOUTRON)

(Case T-13/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark POLIS LOUTRON - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 7/40)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Alexandra Loutsou (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: S. Psomakakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

By her action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 October 2021 (Case R 544/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Alexandra Loutsou to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Alexandra Loutsou to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---
No. 10-930.

#### Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections *v.*Valencia Gonzales.

C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 565 U. S. 1259.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae*and for divided argument granted.
No. 11-10307.

#### Kapordelis *v.*Gainesville Surgery Center et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2





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 of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-K”), I, Bertrand A. Valdman, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.











Date:  March 4, 2011/s/Bertrand A. ValdmanBertrand A. ValdmanSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Berlan Lynell DICEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. HANKS; L. Betti, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15745

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

Berlan Lynell Dicey, Pro Se

Joseph R. Wheeler, Esquire, AGCA-Of-fice of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Berlan Lynell Dicey appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dicey did not properly exhaust his administrate remedies, and Dicey failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. *See Ross v. Blake,*— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-59, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (describing limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are effectively unavailable); *Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“[Pjroper exhaustion of administrative remedies ... means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly[.]” (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dicey’s motion to amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) because Dicey did not present newly discovered evidence, demonstrate clear error by the district court, or present an intervening change in controlling law. *See Carroll v. Nakatani,*342 F.3d 934, 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and discussing when reconsideration is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 *573n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); *see also Lowry v. Barnhart,*329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) (absent unusual circumstances, only the district court record is considered on appeal).

We do not consider issues that were not raised in the opening brief. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<Page>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 12d

                            PSEG ENERGY HOLDINGS LLC
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            For the Years Ended
                                                                December 31,
                                                   --------------------------------------
                                                    2004    2003    2002     2001    2000
                                                   -----   -----   ------   -----   -----
                                                         (Millions, except ratios)
<S>                                                <C>     <C>     <C>      <C>     <C>
Earnings as Defined in Regulation S-K (A):

Pre-tax Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations   $ 185   $ 261   $ (365)  $ 237   $ 183
Loss/(Income) from Equity Investees, Net of
   Distributions                                      78      60       (2)    (59)    (16)
Fixed Charges                                        260     231      231     199     161
Capitalized Interest                                  (2)    (10)     (12)    (13)    (21)
                                                   -----   -----   ------   -----   -----
Total Earnings                                     $ 521   $ 542   $ (148)  $ 364   $ 307
                                                   =====   =====   ======   =====   =====

Fixed Charges as Defined in Regulation S-K (B)

Interest Expense                                   $ 259   $ 230   $  229   $ 196   $ 158
Interest Factor in Rentals                             1       1        2       3       3
                                                   -----   -----   ------   -----   -----
Total Fixed Charges                                $ 260   $ 231   $  231   $ 199   $ 161
                                                   =====   =====   ======   =====   =====
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (C)              2.00    2.35    (0.64)   1.83    1.91
                                                   =====   =====   ======   =====   =====
</TABLE>

(A)  The term "earnings" is defined as pre-tax income from continuing operations
     before income or loss from equity investees plus distributed income from
     equity investees. Add to pre-tax income the amount of fixed charges
     adjusted to exclude the amount of any interest capitalized during the
     period.

(B)  Fixed Charges represent (a) interest, whether expensed or capitalized, (b)
     amortization of debt discount, premium and expense (c) an estimate of
     interest implicit in rentals.

(C)  The ratio of earnings to fixed charges for the year ended December 31,
     2002, were (0.64), as noted above, which represents a deficiency of $379
     million.
Docket No. FAA - 2012 - 0806
#### Kevin PENNINGTON Plaintiff-Appellant v. ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION, originally named as Arkansas Game and Fish Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-2338

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 1, 2018

Filed: March 9, 2018

Kevin Pennington, Pro Se

James F. Goodhart, General Counsel, John Parker Marks, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

*610PER CURIAM.

Kevin Pennington appeals the 'district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action against his former employer, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, in which he, asserted claims of failure to promote, as well as discriminatory and retaliatory termination. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that summary judgment was proper. See Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844, 852-54 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review; in absence of direct evidence of discrimination, Title VII claims are analyzed under burden-shifting framework: if plaintiff establishes prima facie case, defendant may rebut by articulating legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for adverse employment action; in response, plaintiff must prove reason was pretextual); Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 462 F.3d 925, 935 (8th Cir. 2006) (to prove pretext, plaintiff must both discredit asserted reason for adverse employment action and show that circumstances permit reasonable inference that real reason for adverse action was unlawful discrimination).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Argued and submitted January 26, 2016,

affirmed February 23,

petition for review allowed June 15, 2017 (361 Or 543)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*ROBERT GRANT KLINE, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Wasco County Circuit Court

1200296CR; A157007

389 P3d 404

Morgen E. Daniels, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.

Susan G. Howe, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

*910PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of delivery of marijuana for no consideration, ORS 475.860(2) (2012), assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence of the marijuana on which his conviction is predicated. Officers found the marijuana after Officer Williams, upon observing defendant commit several traffic violations while driving, initiated a traffic stop while defendant’s vehicle was moving. During the stop, officers developed probable cause that defendant’s vehicle contained marijuana and searched it without a warrant. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence of the marijuana on the ground, among others, that the warrantless search violated his rights under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, adopted by the Supreme Court in *State v. Brown,*301 Or 268, 273-79, 721 P2d 1357 (1986), authorized the search.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it concluded that the automobile exception authorized the search of his vehicle. In particular, defendant argues that the exception does not apply where, as here, officers lawfully stop a moving vehicle for a traffic violation and do not suspect that the vehicle has a connection to criminal activity until after they bring the vehicle to a stop. In *State v. Bliss,*283 Or App 833, 390 P3d 1099 (2017), decided today, we rejected an identical argument. We therefore reject defendant’s argument for the reasons stated in that case.

Affirmed.
|    |                                                                                                                   |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/    MALON WILKUS     |   |
| Name:                                       |    | Malon Wilkus |   |
| Title:                                      |    | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
| Date:                                       |    | November 3, 2016 |   |
|                                        |   |
| /S/    JOHN R. ERICKSON |   |
| Name:                                       |    | John R. Erickson |   |
| Title:                                      |    | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
| Date:                                       |    | November 3, 2016 |   |
# C_2023329EN.01000301.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/3

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — A, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-335/22, (1) A (Tax on the marketing of securities))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law - Directive 2008/7/EC - Article 5(2)(b) - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Stamp duty on services relating to the placement of bonds and commercial papers on the market)

(2023/C 329/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A, SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the order

Article 5(2)(b) of Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital,

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the imposition of stamp duty on the remuneration that a capital company pays to a financial institution to which it has entrusted the placement on the market of securities such as newly issued bonds and commercial papers, irrespective of whether the companies issuing the securities in question are legally required to use the services of a third party or have chosen to do so of their own accord.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 326, 29.8.2022.

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement No. 333-30443 of Houston Industries Incorporated on Form
S-3 of our report dated February 21, 1997, appearing in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Houston Industries Incorporated for the year ended December 31,
1996 and to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus,
which is part of this Registration Statement.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Houston, Texas

July 3, 1997
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 3.1(b)

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                       CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                                       OF

                             EQUISTAR CHEMICALS, LP

         The undersigned, desiring to amend the Certificate of Limited
Partnership of Equistar Chemicals, LP pursuant to the provisions of Section
17-202 of the Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Delaware,
does hereby certify as follows:

         FIRST:  The name of the Limited Partnership is Equistar Chemicals, LP.

         SECOND: Article 3 of the Certificate of Limited Partnership is amended
     and restated to read:

               3. The name and business address of each of the General Partners
          is:

                           Lyondell Petrochemical G.P. Inc.
                           1221 McKinney, Suite 700
                           Houston, Texas 77010

                           Millennium Petrochemicals GP LLC
                           Meadowood II Shopping Center
                           2644 Capitol Trail, Suite B-1
                           Newark, Delaware 19711

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned executed this Amendment to the
Certificate of Limited Partnership on this 31st day of October, 2002.

Lyondell Petrochemical G.P. Inc.            Millennium Petrochemicals GP LLC
(General Partner)                           (General Partner)


By:   /s/ Gerald A. O'Brien                 By:  /s/ C. William Carmean
    -----------------------                     -----------------------
    Name:  Gerald A. O'Brien                   Name: C. William Carmean
    Title: Vice President,                     Title: Senior Vice President
           General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary financial  information extracted  from the
Statement of Financial  Position for Princeton  Mining  Company at December
31, 1998 (unaudited)  and the Statement  of Operations  for the  year ended
December 31, 1998 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              72
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,072
<PP&E>                                          25,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,605
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       956,334
<OTHER-SE>                                    (954,867)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,072
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,271)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,271)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,271)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.004)
        







</TABLE>