alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Quarterly Coal Report, January - March 2024

Table 29. Average price of U.S. coal receipts at manufacturing plants by North American Industry Classification System

(NAICS) code

(dollars per short ton)

Year to date

NAICS code January - March

2024

October -

December

2023

January - March

2023 2024 2023

Percent

change

311 Food Manufacturing 39.31 41.25 41.62 39.31 41.62 -5.6

312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Mfg. w w w w w w

313 Textile Mills 207.38 w 236.33 w w w

322 Paper Manufacturing 127.39 153.87 161.56 127.39 161.56 -21.2

324 Petroleum and Coal Products w w w w w w

325 Chemical Manufacturing 118.14 105.29 117.77 118.14 117.77 0.3

327 Nonmetallic Mineral Products Mfg. 108.99 108.55 108.50 108.99 108.50 0.5

331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 235.71 253.24 256.00 235.71 256.00 -7.9

333 Machinery Manufacturing w w w w w w

339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 71.76 75.13 72.74 71.76 72.74 -1.3

U.S. Total 76.42 82.61 81.96 76.42 81.96 -6.8

* Includes coal gasification projects.

** Excludes coke plants.

- = No data reported.

w = Data withheld to avoid disclosure.

Note: Average price is based on the cost, insurance, and freight (c.i.f. value). Total may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-3, 'Quarterly Survey of Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Coal Users.'
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2012-0448

Docket Number

2010-SW-016-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 109S-35, dated December 11, 2009

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
XVII  Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XVII, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XVII,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Partnership.


                            /s/ Robert P Johnson
                                Robert P. Johnson, President
                                AEI Fund Management XVII, Inc.
                                Managing General Partner
                                November 10, 2004



                            /s/ Patrick W Keene
                                Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                                AEI Fund Management XVII, Inc.
                                Managing General Partner
                                November 10, 2004
EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2010-01

2002 VSS Vol. I, Sections, 3.2.2.8 

2005 VVSG Vol. I, Sections, 4.1.2.8 

Date: 

March 16, 2010 

Question(s): 

What voltage levels must be tested when performing the ESD test? 

Section of Standards or Guidelines: 

2002 VSS Vol. I, Section 3.2.2.8 & Vol. 2, 4.8.3 

2005 VVSG Vol. I, Section 4.1.2.8 & Vol. 2, 4.8c 

VSS Volume I Section 3.2.2.8 Electrostatic Disruption 

Vote scanning and counting equipment for paper-based systems, and all DRE equipment, 

shall be able to withstand ±15 kV air discharge and ±8 kV contact discharge without 

damage or loss of data. The equipment may reset or have momentary interruption so long 

as normal operation is resumed without human intervention or loss of data. Loss of data 

means votes that have been completed and confirmed to the voter. 

VSS Volume II Section 4.8.3 Electrostatic Disruption 

The test for electrostatic disruption shall be conducted in compliance with the test 

specified in IEC 61000-4-2 (1995-01). 

VVSG Volume I Section 4.1.2.8 Electrostatic Disruption 

Vote scanning and counting equipment for paper-based systems, and all DRE equipment, 

shall be able to withstand ±15 kV air discharge and ±8 kV contact discharge without damage 

or loss of data. The equipment may reset or have momentary interruption so long as normal 

operation is resumed without human intervention or loss of data. Loss of data means votes 

that have been completed and confirmed to the voter. 

VVSG Volume II Section 4.8c Electrostatic Disruption 

The test for electrostatic disruption shall be conducted in compliance with the test specified 

in IEC 61000-4-2 (1995-01). 
Background: 

The following is quoted from IEC 61000-4-2, Edition 2.0 2008-12:

The preferred range of test levels for the ESD test is given in Table 1. 

Contact discharge is the preferred test method. Air discharges shall be 

used where contact discharge cannot be applied. Voltages for each test 

method are given in Table 1. 

.... 

For air discharge testing, the test shall be applied at all test levels in 

Table 1 up to and including the specified test level. For contact discharge 

testing, the test shall be applied at the specified test level only unless 

otherwise specified by product committees. 

Conclusion: 

The test levels stated in IEC 61000-4-2, Edition 2.0, contact discharge, are the test method and 

shall be applied at the specified test level only, 8 kV. Air discharge shall be used where contact 

discharge cannot be applied and all test levels shall be used (2, 4, 8, 15 kV). 

Voting systems are required to be immune to ESD up to the limits of 8 KV, contact discharge, 

and 15 KV, air discharge. During exploratory pre-testing investigation of the possibility of 

windowing effects should be explored. If there are indications that a units has sensitivity at a 

lower voltage but not at a higher voltage test levels shall be added to evaluate the immunity at 

lower voltage levels. 

Effective Date: 

For all systems without an approved test plan. 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PIEDMONT MINING COMPANY, INC. FOR
THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,000
<PP&E>                                         180,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,940,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,814,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,015,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,940,000
<SALES>                                         28,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                78,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (5,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (362,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (362,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (362,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.03)
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-5181.

#### Hancock *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-14.

#### Grynberg Production Corp. et al. *v.*Susman Godfrey, L. L. P.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### InThe Matter Of: 

## SERVED: February 11,2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

. ' ' DocketNo. FAA-2015-2439 CLEAR DAY AVIATION, INC. ) ) ) 

### ) ) CaseNo. 2013EA390075 Respondent 

### SECOND ORDERCONTINUING THE RULE 16 LITIGATION SCHEDULING CONFERENCE OnJanuary 11, 2016 an Order Setting a NewDeadline to File the Rule 26(f) Jointly Proposed Discovery Plan and Continuing the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference was filed. OnFebruary 3, 2016, the parties.file a Joint Proposed Scheduling/Discovery Plan. OnJanuary 10, 2016, the parties appeared by telephone for the**Rul~** 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference. Atthat time, the parties requested additional time to engage inprivate settlement negotiations. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.205(a)(l) and (8), and having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, andbeing fully advised;


### ITIS HEREBY ORDERED: I I 1. The parties'jointoral Motionto postpone the Rule 116 Litigation Scheduling Conference a second time is granted. 2. The Litigation Scheduling Conference set for February 10,2016 is continuedto 

### Monday, March 7, 

### 2016, at 2:00p.m. Easterntime. To access the Court's conference line, the parties shall call 202-493-2343.

### 3. For clarifications ofthis Order orquestions with regard to the procedures to be followed in this case, please contact Mrs. Rachael Brown, Judicial StaffAssistant, at the Office of Hearings (202-366-2132).

Attachment: Service List

Page 2 of2

### Docket No. FAA-2015-2439 (Civil Penalty Action) 

### SERVICE LIST-BYU.S. 

### MAIL
Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 ORIGINAL & ONE COPY



### Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1



### Mr. Zachary M. Berman Complainant's Counsel 

### Federal Aviation Administration Office ofRegional.Counsel 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAJ<: 718-995-5699 

### Mr. H. Bruce Brandon Respondent's Counsel 

### 3439 South Aviation Drive Burlington, NC 27215 TEL: 336-358-6300 FAX: 336-286-7050 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation ONE COPY



### 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAJ<: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Sharon E. Birkett, Vice President Finance and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of Multi-Color Corporation (the
Company), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2010 (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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 8, 2011



By:

/s/ Sharon E. BirkettSharon E. BirkettVice President, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer, Secretary




28
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         177,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,000
<PP&E>                                         237,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,172,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,465,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,014,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,172,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          220,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  220,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               599,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (9,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (810,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (810,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP,
                  REGISTERED INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-126344) pertaining to the 2005 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan of
Resource America, Inc. and the use of our reports dated January 27, 2006,
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Resource America, Inc. for the
year ended September 30, 2005, with respect to the financial statements of
Trapeza Capital Management LLC and Trapeza Management Group LLC.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
October 9, 2006
Submitted December 19, 2016,

reversed May 3, 2017

#### In the Matter of K. A. L., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*K. A. L., *Appellant.*

Lane County Circuit Court

16CC02704; A162194

396 P3d 966

Marc Friedman filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh H. Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

*334PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. In her first assignment' of error, appellant argues that the trial court did not have the authority to commit her while a prior commitment order was still in effect. The state concedes the error. Because, as explained below, we accept the state’s concession, we do not reach appellant’s second assignment of error.

Appellant was committed in Yamhill County on February 24, 2016, for a period not to exceed 180 days. She was released on a “trial visit” to Lane County under the Yamhill County commitment order. *See*ORS 426.273 (during a period of commitment under ORS 426.130, a patient may be granted a trial visit under conditions established by the Oregon Health Authority). On May 2, 2016, Lane County sought a new commitment order based on appellant’s conduct during her trial visit. It believed that it could obtain a new order because the Yamhill County order had not been “successfully” transferred to Lane County. The Lane County trial court entered a new judgment committing appellant for a period not to exceed 180 days, which effectively caused appellant to be subject to a commitment period of more than 180 days when combined with the Yamhill County order.

Appellant’s trial visit in Lane County was governed by ORS 426.275. That statute provides a procedure for revoking a trial visit if a patient fails to adhere to the conditions of the trial visit, and also provides for the transfer of jurisdiction between counties if the person is living in a county other than the county that established the current period of commitment. Lane County failed to proceed as required by that statute. The commitment statutes also do not contemplate that a new commitment period can be ordered when a current period of commitment is not about to expire. *See*ORS 426.130 (the period of commitment may not exceed 180 days); ORS 426.301 (at the end of a 180-day commitment, a person shall be released unless the Oregon Health Authority certifies that the person is in need of further treatment and provides that certification to the person); ORS 426.307 (providing a hearing to a person who protests *335continued commitment under ORS 426.301). Thus, we agree with and accept the state’s concession that the trial court lacked the authority to proceed as it did, and we reverse the judgment of commitment.

Reversed.
# File Information

A14 - Consumption by VehType

Std Errors for A14

N Cells for A14

# A14 - Consumption by VehType 

# Std Errors for A14

# N Cells for A14
#### CITIBANK, N.A. *v.*NABIL R. GHAWI

(AC 35514)

Gmendel, Alvord and Bishop, Js.

Argued February 19—

officially released March 25, 2014

Defendant’s appeal from the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, *Tobin,*J.; *Hon. A. William Mottolese,*judge trial referee; *Hon. Taggart D. Adams,*judge trial referee.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8915 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8915

 To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
   Liability Act of 1980 to provide for the consideration of climate 
                    change, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2020

 Mr. Cleaver (for himself and Ms. Bass) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
 addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
   Liability Act of 1980 to provide for the consideration of climate 
                    change, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preparing Superfund for Climate 
Change Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION.

    Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9621) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1), in the fifth sentence--
                    (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
                striking ``account:'' and inserting ``account--'';
                    (B) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the 
                end;
                    (C) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at 
                the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (D) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the 
                following:
                    ``(H) the potential threat to human health and the 
                environment associated with local natural disasters and 
                extreme weather hazards, including any projected 
                exacerbation or change in those disasters and hazards 
                due to climate change.''; and
            (2) in subsection (c), by inserting after the first 
        sentence the following: ``The President shall include in the 
        review an assessment of whether the selected remedial action 
        remains protective after taking into account local natural 
        disasters and extreme weather hazards, including any projected 
        exacerbation or change in those disasters and hazards due to 
        climate change.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>




                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 filed June 6, 1994, pertaining to the RVM Industries, Inc., Stock
Option Plan (formerly the Ravens Metal Products, Inc., Stock Option Plan) of our
report dated September 6, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of RVM Industries, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-KA) for the year ended March 31, 2002.

  /s/ SALTZ, SHAMIS & GOLDFARB, INC.
-----------------------------------
Akron, Ohio
January 9, 2003




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 filed June 6, 1994, pertaining to the RVM Industries, Inc., Stock
Option Plan (formerly the Ravens Metal Products, Inc., Stock Option Plan) of our
report dated July 9, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of RVM Industries, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KA)
for the year ended March 31, 2002.


 /s/ Ernst & Young
------------------
Akron, Ohio
January 9, 2003




                                       61