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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Registrant's
     December 31, 1998 Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference
     to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000276189     
<NAME>                   Fairfield Communities, Inc.     
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U. S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                           5,017
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  215,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,005
<INVENTORY>                                    128,397
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          49,677
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 431,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         79,441
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                           507 
<OTHER-SE>                                     222,123 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   431,093
<SALES>                                        338,329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               364,238
<CGS>                                          115,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  134,011
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,270
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,490
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 69,537
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,909
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             43,628
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0   
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,628 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.93
        


</TABLE>
#### Schuler-Haas Electric Corp., Appellant, v Crown Asphalt Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Special Term correctly determined that a question of fact existed as to the price agreed upon by the parties. Evidence of defendant’s customary procedure of negotiating an agreed price with subcontractors and then incorporating that price, plus 7% for overhead, in its bid for public contracts can be considered on a motion for summary judgment *(see, Barrow v Lawrence United Corp.,*146 AD2d 15, 21; *J. Sussman, Inc. v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.,*140 AD2d 668; *Dutch-American Mercantile Corp. v Cotra Corp.,*285 App Div 55). We conclude that such evidence was sufficient, under the circumstances of this case, to raise a factual issue as to the price agreed upon between defendant and plaintiff subcontractor. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Provenzano, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Case 1:07-cv-05347-AKH Document 14 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05347-AKH Document 14 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05347-AKH Document 14 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
NODAL EXCHANGE CONTRACT SPECIFICATION

District of Columbia Renewable Energy Certificate Tier 1 Vintage 2022 Future

ITEM SPECIFICATION

Contract Description

Physically delivered District of Columbia Tier 1 Renewable Energy Certificate

(“District of Columbia Tier I REC”) where a REC is an electronic certificate issued by

PJM GATS for qualifying generation.

Contract Code WDF

Settlement Method Physical Delivery

Hours of Trading As defined at http://www.nodalexchange.com

Unit of Trading 1 lot

Lot Size 100 MWh representing 100 qualifying Tier 1 RECs

Currency US Dollars

Minimum Tick $0.01 per MWh

Settlement Price Precision $0.01 per MWh

Last Trading Day Three Business Days prior to the last Business Day of the delivery month

Delivery Day Three Business Days after the Last Trading Day (Last Business Day of the delivery 

month)

Contract Series

February of the year following the vintage year, plus one additional February. Jan 

2024 expiry is also available. The exchange may list any other calendar month 

contract set off the standard listing cycle for up to 10 years.

Deliverable Product

District of Columbia Tier 1 RECs eligible for delivery are those which are eligible to 

meet the Tier 1 renewable energy requirements specified in D.C. Official Code §34-

1431 (15) under the District of Columbia Renewable Portfolio Standard promulgated 

under D.C. Official Code § 34-1432 and issued by PJM GATS having a vintage or 

energy year designation that corresponds to the specified vintage of the expiring 

contract.

Registry PJM-EIS Generation Attribute Tracking System (PJM GATS)

Daily Settlement Price Determined by the Exchange based on exchange activity, other market data, and 

extrapolation to traded contracts, as appropriate

Final Settlement Price The Daily Settlement Price on the Last Trading Day

Delivery

On the Last Trading Day, the Exchange will provide the Clearing House with 

information identifying the Participants with delivery obligations for the purpose of 

issuing Tender and invoice notices in accordance with Section IX (Physical Delivery 

and Settlement) of the Nodal Clear Rulebook.

Final Settlement (Payment) 

Date

Three or four Business Days after the Last Trading Day on the successful delivery of 

the underlying instruments (if the delivery confirmation is available by 11:30am on 

the third Business Day after the Last Trading Day, the payment will be made on the 

same day during the Midday Margin Cycle; if it is available after 11:30am, the 

payment will be made on the next Margin Cycle which will be the next Business Day)

Position Limit https://www.nodalexchange.com/files/autogenerated/Nodal_Rulebook_Appendix_

C-Limits_and_Levels.PDF
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 4038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1260]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Approved Tribal-State Compact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 
1988 (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the 
Interior shall publish, in the Federal Register, notice of approved 
Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming 
activities on Indian lands. The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, through his delegated authority, has 
approved the Second Amendment between the Eastern Band of Cherokee 
Indians and the State of North Carolina, which was executed on November 
14, 2000.

DATES: This action is effective January 17, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 
20240, (202) 219-4066.

    Dated: December 28, 2000.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 01-1260 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
N 0 . 06

- 15

- 00086

- CR

I N THE Sixth COURT OF APPEALS

OF TEXAS

At Texarkana

Samuel Moses Williams

APPELLANT

vs.

The State of Tex as

APPELLEE

_______________________________________________________________

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

_______________________________________________________________

Comes now Charles E. Perry, attorney for the Appellant Samuel Moses

Williams and moves the above Appellant Court for an order allowing him to

withdraw for the reason that he had filed an Anders Brief in the above styled and

numbered case as he had reviewed the record in said case an finds no error in

which to reverse the case. Charles E. Perry now files the instant motion so that the

Appellant can file a brief pro se or have other counsel for error that might give him

relief . A letter, copy of the Anders Br ief along with Clerks Record and Trial

Record have been sent to the Appellant at his place of incarceration.

/s/ Charles E. Perry
October 15, 2020

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL (secretary@cftc.gov)

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

155 21st Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Tassat Derivatives LLC– Application for Reinstatement as a Swap Execution Facility

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Tassat Derivatives LLC hereby applies for reinstatement as a Swap Execution Facility pursuant to 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Regulation 37.3(d).

The application consists of this transmittal letter; the attached folders as listed on the Table of Contents; 

and, a petition for confidential treatment, which is being submitted simultaneously to the Assistant 

Secretary of the Commission for Freedom of Information.

Questions regarding this application should be directed to the attention of the undersigned at 312.371.3229 

or ann.cresce@tassat.com.

Respectfully submitted,

Ann M. Cresce

Chief Compliance Officer

DocuSign Envelope ID: D2047964-069F-4C68-84D0-A59258322A96
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-409-000]

Take notice that on May 4, 2001, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline L.L.C. (Maritimes) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets proposed to be effective June 4, 2001:

First Revised Sheet No. 201

Original Sheet No. 309

Sheet Nos. 310-399

Maritimes states that the purpose of this filing is to amend its tariff, as suggested by the Commission in its April 12, 2001, Order Denying Clarification and Rehearing in Docket No. CP95-218-004, to include a generic waiver of the “shipper must have title” rule and a general statement that it will only transport for others on off-system capacity pursuant to its existing tariff and rates.

Maritimes states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all affected customers and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-11985  Filed 5-11-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS I, William Cullen, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Power Smoothie Café Franchising, Inc.; 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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 me 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 my 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. I have disclosed, based on my 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.  By:
        
        /s/ William CullenWilliam CullenChief Executive Officer, President, andChief Financial Officer
  Date: March 17, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             271
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,105
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,307)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,315
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,787
<PP&E>                                          38,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,052)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,947
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,098
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,419
<SALES>                                          5,643
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,643
<CGS>                                            7,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,414
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,880)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,870)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,870)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 8 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 8 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
# C_2019413EN.01004401.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Printeos and Others v Commission

(Case T-466/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Annulment in part on the ground of infringement of the obligation to state reasons - Amending decision - Settlement procedure - Fines - Basic amount - Exceptional adjustment - 10 % ceiling on the total turnover - Article 23 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Ne bis in idem principle - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Cumulation of penalties - Proportionality - Fairness - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2019/C 413/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain), Printeos Cartera Industrial, SL (Alcalá de Henares), Tompla Scandinavia AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Tompla France (Fleury-Mérogis, France), Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (Leonberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Brokelmann et P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4112 final of 16 June 2017 amending Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes) and, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---
Exhibit 32.01

                       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 Quarterly Report of Photovoltaic Solar Cells,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended November 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
the date hereof ("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on
the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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.

Dated: December 28, 2007         /s/ Lawrence F. Curtin
                                  -----------------------
                                  Lawrence F. Curtin,
                                  President











<PAGE>
Case 1:07-cv-05731-JGK-RLE Document 33 Filed 01/16/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 17 Filed 11/05/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 17 Filed 11/05/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05425-AKH     Document 3      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JAVIER VARGAS CONTRERAS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-30190 

D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00204-RMP-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Javier Vargas Contreras appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 11-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his 

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Contreras contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on a 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 30 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-30190 

clearly erroneous finding of fact related to his minor son. This argument is not 

supported by the record, which reflects that the court expressed reasonable 

skepticism—based on other evidence in the record—about counsel’s 

representations regarding Contreras’s relationship with his son. Contrary to 

Contreras’s argument, the court did not make any findings as to the veracity of a 

witness’s testimony regarding the son’s suicidal ideation, nor did it overlook or 

mischaracterize that witness’s testimony.

Contreras also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in 

light of his mitigating circumstances, including parental obligations, travel

difficulties, poverty, and substance abuse issues. The district court did not abuse 

its discretion by concluding that these circumstances did not warrant a lesser 

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence at the 

high end of the Guidelines, imposed after the district court held Contreras’s 

violations in abeyance on three occasions to permit him to come into compliance 

with the terms of his supervised release and following his admission to 17 

violations, is substantively reasonable under the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and 

the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 

485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (purpose of revocation sentence is to sanction 

the defendant’s breach of the court’s trust). We do not consider Contreras’s 

policy-based challenge to the Guidelines, which he did not raise in the district 
3 22-30190 

court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.