alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21
                                               
                                               
                                               
                             CTG RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     ----------------------------------------------------
                                               
                                SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                                ------------------------------
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
<TABLE>
   <S>                                   <C>                   <C>
                                                               Percentage of Voting
                                         Incorporated Under    Securities Owned By
   Name of Subsidiary                         Laws of            Immediate Parent
   ------------------                    ------------------    --------------------
    
   Connecticut Natural Gas
      Corporation ("CNG")(1)                Connecticut                100% 
      CNG Realty Corp.                      Connecticut                100%
      The Greenwich Gas System, Inc.(2)     Connecticut                100%
    

   The Energy Network, Inc.("TEN")(3)       Connecticut                100%
       The Hartford Steam Company           Connecticut                100%
       ENServe, Incorporated                Connecticut                100%
       ENI Gas Services, Inc.               Connecticut                100%
       TEN Gas Services, Inc.               Connecticut                100%
       TEN Transmission Company             Connecticut                100%
</TABLE>
[FN]    
(1) CNG Realty Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of CNG at September 30, 1998.
    
(2) The Greenwich Gas System, Inc.:  inactive.
    
(3) The Hartford Steam Company, ENServe, Incorporated, ENI Gas Services, Inc., 
    TEN Gas Services, Inc. and TEN Transmission Company are wholly owned 
    subsidiaries of TEN at September 30, 1998.
    <PAGE>
# Employees encouraged to verify disability status in MyBiz by Sept. 30

/ Published Sept. 16, 2019
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
Defense Logistics Agency employees are being asked to verify and update their disability status in MyBiz or by completing SF-256, “Self-Identification of Disability,” by Sept. 30 so the agency can accurately reflect its diverse workforce in fiscal 2019 reporting. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations dictate that federal agencies take steps toward hiring a workforce made up of 12% of employees with a disability and 2% with targeted disabilities. DLA data shows the agency is exceeding that goal with 14.50% of the workforce having disabilities and 2.42% having targeted disabilities. However, employees with targeted disabilities at the senior level – GS-13, GS-14, GS-15 and Senior Executive Service – are lacking. Nancy Rivera, disability program manager for the DLA Equal Employment Opportunity Office, suspects the numbers are actually higher.

“Those of us who joined the workforce 30, 20 or 10 years ago may not have kept up with changes on what counts as a disability or given much thought to updating our status in MyBiz as we’ve gotten older and developed health issues,” Rivera said, adding that some employees may be uncomfortable disclosing their personal information.

In 2016, the Office of Personnel Management changed the terms it uses to describe disabilities and targeted disabilities. Among the changes is the inclusion of serious difficulty hearing and the use of hearing aids as a targeted disability, a category that also includes conditions like traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression and mobility impairment. The “other disabilities” category ranges from diabetes and gastrointestinal disorders to cancer.

One of four people have a disability, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Rivera said employees may have preconceived notions that keep them from reporting their disability. Some may fear they’ll be viewed as having limited ability, though many people with disabilities require no accommodation to do their job.

“Updating one’s MyBiz profile helps reflect the contributions individuals at all levels make toward our mission success and toward recruiting and retaining a diverse, inclusive workforce that mirrors society,” Rivera said. 

Self-identification is voluntary and confidential, and will help measure how well DLA is meeting Objective 7.3 in the DLA People and Culture Plan: Promote a diverse and inclusive environment that empowers employees at all levels to perform to their maximum potential. The data is especially important as the agency works to accurately reflect the number of employees with disabilities at senior levels, Rivera added.

A copy of SF-256 is available at https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf256.pdf. To verify and update your disability status, visit MyBiz through the Defense Civilian Personnel Data System at https://compo.dcpds.cpms.osd.mil/. For a step-by-step guide to updating MyBiz, watch this video:
SHAWN LADARIUS DALE

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4311

____ _________________________/

Opinion filed March 10, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Linda L. Nobles , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , for Appe llant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 08-2533 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,

v. CALVIN SEBASTIAN, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on July 16, 2010, is amended as follows: On page 6, line 3, replace "is" with "are" One page 6, line 4, place "that it was not" with "they were not"
No. 12-8719.

#### Worth *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                                      
|                                                                                   
|No chart available.                                                                
|No chart available.                                                                
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|North Dakota Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Coalbed Wells  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
2016-1611.

#### State v. Thurman.

Meigs App. No. 15CA4, 2016-Ohio-7254.
No. 12-8832 (12A824).

#### Cook *v.*Humphrey, Warden.

Sup. Ct. Ga. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.
Hello, my name is Jeff Green and I live in Frankfort Illinois just south of Chicago. I have a BS in Electrical 

Engineering Technology from Southern Illinois University, have been a renewable energy advocate for 

25 years, I am a founding member of IREA which is Illinois Renewable Energy Association. We will be 

putting on our 141

h annual renewable energy fair this August 22nd and 23rd in Oregon Illinois. I have been 

passionate in my study of global warming for 9 years now and have come to the conclusion that we are 

in for a world of hurt if we stay business as usual. Bold engineering in efficiency of trucking is a vital part 

of humanity staying sustainable on earth. 

In this discussion I want to go to 3 different sources that I respect in their practicality and their deep 

commitment to sustainability on earth. Union of concerned scientists, Sierra Club, and Amory Lovin's 

book "Reinventing Fire". I am a paying member of the f irst two groups and have enjoyed Reinventing 

Fire for its very thorough review of how to achieve a great economy on much less energy. These groups 

are well studied and well informed on what is possible to keep our country great in its leadership in a 

cleaner energy economy. 

"' 0 

v 

3 

Heavy-truck fuel efficiency: savings vs. marginal cost 

t -

ltafl\tnt\\.tOO 

••u•oh,try 

I)()Wt'f 

UIUI\ 

I 

I 

I 7 Mbblid 

"w.nq~ 

0 ~------------------------------------------------~--------- 0.5 1.5 2 

dtesel fuel saved 1n 2050 (Mbbl/dl 

Fig. 2 - 17 . Bcttct· design of single-trailer Class 8 tt·ucks could save the U.S. 

From the book Reinventing Fire by Amory Lovins. 

From the study in Reinventing Fire figure 2.17 shows 6 different areas of redesign of our class 8 trucks of 

how we could achieve 1. 7Mbbl of diesel fuel/day savings 2050. $2.47 /gallon by year 2050 which 

translates to $67 billion dollars per year. Fuel prices in whatever form we have at that time will surely be 

higher than today. 
From my experience in being a sustainability and renewable energy advocate is that energy efficiency is 

t he low hanging fruit with the least cost and the greatest financial benefits. The trucking industry is no 

exception to this rule. From both sources of Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists show that the 

combined trucking standards of 2010 and 2015 could achieve a 40% reduction of fuel savings of new 

trucks by 2025. New truck higher cost of $32,000 would save $30,000 in a year. That is a win in any 

business person's book. 

We should be bold in our move forward to be leaders in the world of engineering, product 

development, energy efficiency, and therefore business costs. This kind of move will benefit our climate, 

health of our children and life on earth. This is the kind of win that everyone will gain from. Thank you 

for your time.
#### Custino v. State, Dept. of Transp.

CAAP-11-0000570

05/15/2014

Vacated in Part, Remanded and Affirmed
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1924 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1924

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide clarification for 
the deductibility of expenses incurred by a taxpayer in connection with 
                     the business use of the home.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             March 10 (legislative day, February 22), 1994

  Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Exon, and Mr. Lieberman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide clarification for 
the deductibility of expenses incurred by a taxpayer in connection with 
                     the business use of the home.

    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 ``Home Office Deduction Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.

    Subsection (f) of section 280A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as paragraphs 
(3), (4), and (5), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (1) 
the following new paragraph:
            ``(2) Principal place of business.--For purposes of 
        subsection (c), a home office shall in any case qualify as the 
        principal place of business if--
                    ``(A) the office is the location where the 
                taxpayer's essential administrative or management 
                activities are conducted on a regular and systematic 
                (and not incidental) basis by the taxpayer, and
                    ``(B) the office is necessary because the taxpayer 
                has no other location for the performance of the 
                administrative or management activities of the 
                business.''.

SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF STORAGE OF PRODUCT SAMPLES.

    Paragraph (2) of section 280A(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``inventory'' and inserting ``inventory or 
product samples''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply to taxable years 
beginning after December 31, 1991.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States
Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Qwest
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Qwest. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Qwest and will be retained by Qwest and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated: April 29, 2009

By:

/s/ EDWARD A. MUELLER Edward A. Mueller
Chief Executive OfficerDated: April 29, 2009

By:

/s/ JOSEPH J. EUTENEUER Joseph J. Euteneuer
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
#### Harvey Rubin, Respondent, v James S. Baumann et al., Appellants.

[52 NYS3d 3]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about July 22, 2016, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and the motion denied. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 25, 2016, which denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s motion, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and the motion granted. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 29, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion for reargument but, upon re-argument, adhered to its prior determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

We reject defendants’ contentions that plaintiff’s 2015 sale notice was too vague, that it was defective because it was sent by his attorney rather than plaintiff personally, that plaintiff’s motion sought relief not sought in the complaint, and that the court improperly reformed the parties’ contract. However, we agree with defendants’ argument that plaintiff was not entitled to partial summary judgment because he failed to send defendant James S. Baumann a sale notice pursuant to paragraph 8.5.2 of the Operating Agreement.

Paragraph 8.5.2 provides, “If the Managers elect not to purchase the Interest of the Offering Members as above described and if the Offering Members still desire to sell the Interest, the Offering Members shall give the other Members a Sale Notice.” Plaintiff contends that “the other Members” means “Members who are not Managers.” However, defendants’ interpretation — that “the other Members” means “Members other than the Offering Members” — makes at least as much sense as plaintiff’s interpretation. Hence, the contract is ambiguous *(see e.g. Telerep, LLC v U.S. Intl. Media, LLC,*74 AD3d 401, 402-403 [1st Dept 2010]). If a contract is ambiguous, “it cannot be construed as a matter of law” *(id.*at 402). Therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment.

Plaintiff correctly states that “a contract should not be interpreted to produce an absurd result” *(Macy’s Inc. v Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.,*127 AD3d 48, 54 [1st Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]). However, requiring plaintiff to serve a second Sale Notice on other Members would *557not produce an absurd result — it would merely give Baumann an additional 30 days (beyond his 120 days as Manager) to purchase plaintiff’s interest in defendant 330 West 85, LLC.

Moreover, plaintiff’s 2016 Sale Notice, which set an offer price of $9.7 million, is inconsistent with his 2015 Sale Notice, which set an offer price of $8.65 million *(see Norca Corp. v Tokheim Corp.,*227 AD2d 458, 458-459 [2d Dept 1996]). Although the 2016 Sale Notice says it is without prejudice to the 2015 notice, it would be improper for both notices to be effective at the same time. For example, it would allow plaintiff to skirt the two-year ban on subsequent Sale Notices in paragraph 8.5.3 if he failed to sell the building for a price that would net him and Baumann $9.7 million each.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
TS- ASLT60

Attachment # 9

Pt. 2, Sec. B

Additional Information on the Absence of Tank Truck Cleaning Operations at Road

Construction Sites
2017-1026.

#### Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2010-3563. On joint motion to remand. Cause remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to take further action as appropriate.
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONSOF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

I, Tom W. Olofson, ChiefExecutive Officer of Epiq Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifypursuant to Section 1350, of chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, andSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge, (1) the annual report on Form 10-K/A of the Company to whichthis Exhibit is attached (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Tom W. Olofson |
|--------------------|
| Tom W. Olofson     |

 

Dated:    February 8, 2007

I, Elizabeth M.Braham, Chief Financial Officer of Epiq Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify pursuant to Section 1350, of chapter 63 of title 18, United StatesCode, and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of my knowledge, (1) the annual report on Form 10-K/A of the Companyto which this Exhibit is attached (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Elizabeth M. Braham |
|-------------------------|
| Elizabeth M. Braham     |

 

Dated:    February 8, 2007

----
# C_2010121EN.01000101.xml

| 8.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5804 — Samsung Electronics CO/Samsung Digital Imaging CO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 121/01

On 30 March 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5804. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5804. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Com. v. Herring

12/01/2015

522 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 85