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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
               The  consolidated  balance  sheet as of May 31, 1997 and the
               consolidated  statement  of  income  for the six  months  ended
               May 31, 1997.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,186
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3347
<ALLOWANCES>                                   116
<INVENTORY>                                    85
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,888
<PP&E>                                         32,959
<DEPRECIATION>                                 14,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 23,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,578
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       886
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   23,468
<SALES>                                        6,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,293
<CGS>                                          1,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (6)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             65
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,522
<INCOME-TAX>                                   958
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,564
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,564
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .40
        


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30195 Summary Calendar

BENJAMIN T. MEYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IBERIA PARISH; GOVERNMENT OF IBERIA PARISH; ERROL ANTOINE “ROMO” ROMERO, Individually and as Sheriff of Iberia Parish; RON SONNIER, Deputy Sheriff, Iberia Parish Sheriff Department; AGENT #109, Deputy Sheriff, Iberia Parish Sheriff Department; A B C INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurer of Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Department; X Y Z INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurer of Iberia Parish Government, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1568

- - - - - - - - - - September 24, 1997 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *Benjamin T. Meyers appeals the dismissal of his maliciousprosecution claim in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, arguing that he pleaded a cause of action for malicious prosecution and that theNo. 97-30195 -2- claim was timely inasmuch as it was filed within one year of the charges being dismissed. The district court did not err in finding that Meyers failed to plead a malicious-prosecution claim. Meyers failed to allege that criminal proceedings were terminated in his favor or that there was a lack of probable cause. Nor did he allege facts that indicated the presence of malice. Miller v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Dep’t , 511 So. 2d 446, 452 (La. 1987). Although Meyers was proceeding pro se at the time that he filed his complaint, a pro se litigant is not exempt "from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law." Birl v.

Estelle , 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981). Meyers also argues that the granting of the motion for summary judgment was premature inasmuch as no discovery had been conducted. Meyers did not seek a continuance of the motion for summary judgment on the basis that additional discovery was needed and made no effort to conduct discovery in the six months between the time he filed his complaint and the time the motion for summary judgment was filed. Moreover, he does not indicate what information he needed to obtain through discovery. Meyers has failed to show that additional discovery was necessary to establish any issue of material fact which would have precluded summary judgment. See NGS American, Inc. v. Barnes , 998 F.2d 296, 300 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT  21


                                        NORAM ENERGY CORP.

DIVISIONS:
Arkla
Entex
Minnegasco
NorAm Trading & Transportation Group

SUBSIDIARIES:

AER - Arkansas Gas Transit Company
                 Subsidiaries:    Blue Jay Gas Company
                                  Raven Gas Company
ALG Gas Supply Company
                 Subsidiaries:    ALG Gas Supply Company of Arkansas
                                  ALG Gas Supply Company of Kansas
                                  ALG Gas Supply Company of Louisiana
                                  ALG Gas Supply Company of Oklahoma
                                  ALG Gas Supply Company of Texas
Allied Materials Corporation
Arkansas Louisiana Finance Corporation
Arkla Finance Corporation
Arkla Industries Inc.
Arkla Products Company
Entex Coal Company
Entex Gas Marketing Company
Entex NGV, Inc.
Entex Oil Company
Entex Oil & Gas Co.
Industrial Gas Supply Corporation
Intex, Inc.
Louisiana Unit Gas Transmission Company
Minnesota Intrastate Pipeline Company
Mississippi River Transmission Corporation
                 Subsidiaries:    MRT Services Company
National Furnace Company
NorAm Consumer Services, Inc.
NorAm Damage Prevention, Inc.
NorAm Energy Management, Inc.
NorAm Energy Services, Inc.
NorAm Field Services Corp.
NorAm Financing I  (Trust)
NorAm Funds Management, Inc.
NorAm Gas Processing Company
NorAm Gas Transmission Company
NorAm Hub Services Inc.
NorAm Latin America, Inc.
                 Subsidiary:  NorAm De Mexico S.A. de C.V.
NorAm Trading and Transportation Group, Inc.
NorAm Utility Services, Inc.
Unit Gas, Inc.
Unit Gas Transmission Company
United Gas, Inc.
#### Nanette G. LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John POTTER, Postmaster General, USPS; Philip O. Burns, MDO; Rose Gray, Postmaster, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-1514.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 6, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 30, 2006.

Nanette G. Love, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne P. Klauer, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Nanette G. Love appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Love v. Potter,*No. 1:03-cv-00746-FWB, 2006 WL 519684 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 1, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 31(g)

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Daniel F. Packer, certify that:1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Entergy New Orleans, 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.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) 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.










|/s/ Daniel F. PackerDaniel F. Packer
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of
Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	March 9, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Abel Rivera, Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 299]

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), both rendered December 16, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 04-00575, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and conspiracy in the second degree under indictment No. 04-00594, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him, inter alia, to an indeterminate term of 6 to 18 years imprisonment for conspiracy in the second degree under indictment No. 04-00594.

Ordered that the judgment under indictment No. 04-00575 is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment under indictment No. 04-00594 is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed on the conviction of conspiracy in the second degree from an indeterminate term of 6 to 18 years imprisonment to an indeterminate term of 4 to 12 years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment under indictment No. 04-00594 is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of due process by the failure of the interpreter to file an oath of public office and be sworn to interpret truthfully and accurately is based partially on a matter dehors the record which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal *(cf. People v Dallas,*31 AD3d 573 [2006]). To the extent that the contention can be reviewed, it is without merit *(see People v Bicet,*180 AD2d 692, 693 [1992]; *People v Torres,*96 AD2d 604 [1983]).

The defendant’s contention that his pleas of guilty were coerced by the prosecution’s promise of leniency for his wife is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his pleas on that basis, or otherwise raise this issue before the court of first instance *(see People v Clarke,*93 NY2d 904, 906 [1999]; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636, 637 [1983]; *People v Coles,*240 AD2d 419 [1997]). In any event, the record belies the defendant’s claim of coercion. During the plea allocution, the defendant acknowledged, inter alia, that he was pleading guilty because he was in fact guilty, that no one forced, threatened, coerced, or pressured him to plead guilty, and that he was pleading guilty of his own free will.

*943The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to advise him of the potential immigration consequences of his plea is dehors the record and not properly before this Court.

We agree with the defendant that the sentencing court erred in imposing a sentence on his conviction of conspiracy in the second degree which was greater than the sentence promised at the plea proceeding *(see People v Pagan,*245 AD2d 533 [1997]; *People v Jones,*168 AD2d 471 [1990]; *People v Outlaw,*157 AD2d 677 [1990]). Accordingly, we reduce the sentence imposed for the conviction of conspiracy in the second degree to conform with the plea agreement. Florio, J.E, Crane, Luciano, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
{"agency":"NIGC","generated":"2020-10-07 16:32:41","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2020"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["NIGC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["12"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["11"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["1"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2020","quarter":"Q3"}
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Stacia N. Almquist, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Union Security Insurance Company;

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;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

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

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

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

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

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

Date: August 4, 2008



/s/    Stacia N. AlmquistStacia N. AlmquistTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
96-2797.

#### AL Post 0184 v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.

Miami App. No. 96CA17. *Sua sponte,*cause held for the decision in 96-1270 and 96-1271, *VFW Post 1238 v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.,*Huron App. No. H-95-065; briefing schedule stayed.

Douglas and Resnick, JJ., dissent.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,621

EX PARTE TRACY J. HOWARD, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 19151 IN THE 356 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM HARDIN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of

marijuana, over 50 pounds, and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The Ninth Court of

Appeals affirmed his conviction. Howard v. State, No. 09-09-00203-CR (Tex. App.–Beaumont,

May 12, 2010). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed. Counsel submitted a
2

response stating that he timely mailed a letter to Applicant informing him that his conviction was

affirmed and that he had a right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Applicant alleges

that during the applicable time frame, the mail room at his facility did not receive any mail from

counsel addressed to Applicant. We remanded this application to the trial court to determine

whether Applicant received the letter from counsel.

The applicable mail logs from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice have been submitted

to the trial court. Based on those logs, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of

law that Applicant did not receive the letter from appellate counsel. Applicant is entitled to relief

based not on ineffective assistance of counsel, but rather on a break-down in the system. Ex parte

Riley, 193 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

We find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for

discretionary review of the judgment of the Ninth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 09-09-00203-CR

that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 19151 from the 356 Judicial District Court of Hardin th

County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of

the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: September 14, 2011

Do not publish
| (1)    | The      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,      2009 (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      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the    Report. |

| /s/ Theodore H. Bunting, Jr.Theodore      H. Bunting, Jr.Senior      Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer ofEntergy      Arkansas, Inc.(acting      principal financial officer) |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13896]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,662]


Leed's; Warren, OH; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 23, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by workers of Leed's, Warren, Ohio.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of May 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13896 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P