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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>  1

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                      SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                             11,867,978
<SECURITIES>                                                        3,613,896
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      22,691,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        3,162,696
<INVENTORY>                                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   48,660,526
<PP&E>                                                             31,129,830
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     15,051,192
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    171,591,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              44,773,813
<BONDS>                                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                              115,532
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                                          4,017,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      171,591,022
<SALES>                                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                   50,231,605
<CGS>                                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      59,096,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    (702,120)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    191,673
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   (8,354,793)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      (2,338,456)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               (6,016,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      (6,016,337)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                             (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           (.40)




</TABLE>
#### Columbia Machine and Stopper Corporation v. H. Koehler & Company.

— Motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum per curiam. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
EXHIBIT 3.46
 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT
OF
MUSKOGEE PHYSICIAN GROUP, LLC
 2
  ARTICLE I
 OFFICES
   ARTICLE II
 MEMBERS




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
 MANAGERS
       3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV
 OFFICERS
    5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
 CONTRACTS, LOANS, CHECKS AND DEPOSITS
  7




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI
 TRANSFER OF PERCENTAGE OWNERSHIP
  ARTICLE VII
 FISCAL YEAR
  ARTICLE VIII
 DISTRIBUTIONS
  ARTICLE IX
 SEAL
  8




---



##### 



ARTICLE X
 WAIVER OF NOTICE
  ARTICLE XI
 INDEMNIFICATION OF OFFICERS AND MANAGERS
  ARTICLE XII
 AMENDMENTS
  9




---



##### 



2nd
 MUSKOGEE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LLCSole MemberBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ D. Andrew Slusser

D. Andrew SlusserTitle:
    
    Vice President
 10
EXHIBIT 99.1

Certification of Chief Executive
Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Immucor, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Edward L. Gallup, President (Chief Executive Officer) of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Edward L. Gallup

Edward L. Gallup
President (Chief Executive Officer)

April 14, 2003

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Immucor, Inc. and will be retained
by Immucor, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 18-1593V 

 Filed: October 9, 2019 

UNPUBLISHED 

TRAVIS REITTER, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; 

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) 

   

Brenton Aaron Elswick, Maglio Christopher & Toale, Seattle, WA, for petitioner. 

Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Corcoran, Chief Special Master: 

 On October 15, 2018, Travis Reitter (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et 

seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome 

(“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 8, 2016. 

Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of 

Special Masters. 

                                                            

1 I intend to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This means the ruling 

will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which 

would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material 

fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished ruling 

contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States 

Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 

note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2

On October 8, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report 

at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “[m]edical personnel at the Division of Injury 

Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services (‘DICP’), have 

reviewed the petition and medical records filed in the case. It is respondent’s position 

that petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (‘Table’) and 

the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation.” Id. at 7. 

 In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Brian H. Corcoran 

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Chief Special Master
#### § 418.2220 What is not a significant reduction in your income?

We will follow the rules in § 418.1220, except that any references in that section to regulations in subpart B of this part shall be treated as references to the corresponding regulation in this subpart.
#### Clarke A. Sanford, Respondent, v. Ina W. Smith, as Executrix of Scudder T. Whipple, Deceased, Appellant.

Defendant has appealed from a judgment of the Delaware Trial Term of the Supreme Court directing specific performance of an option for the sale of real property and from an order denying her motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. On July 5, 1940, defendant’s testate gave plaintiff’s assignor an option to purchase property in Delaware County for the sum of $12,000. The option was under seal and provided for acceptance at any time within two years from the date thereof by giving to the testate, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, a written notice of acceptance. Defendant’s testate died before the expiration of the time within which to exercise the option. Plaintiff became the owner of the option on April 1, 1941, and on June 25th of the same year he served a notice required for the acceptance of the option and tendered payment. The offer was rejected on various grounds, among others, that the decedent’s signature to the contract was obtained by fraud and that the consideration for the sale was inadequate. The trial court resolved the various questions in favor of plaintiff and the evidence sustains the finding of the trial court. The defendant’s motioil for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence was also properly denied. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. Present — Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Foster, Russell and Deyo, JJ.
(No. 73-CC-296

#### Geraldine A. Tucker, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed August 23, 1973.*

Geraldine A. Tucker, Claimant, pro se.

*54William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          48,398
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,860
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 8,324
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    310,350
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         107,355
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           106,131
<LOANS>                                        934,431
<ALLOWANCE>                                     12,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,475,755
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,135,444
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,746
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             14,275
<LONG-TERM>                                    103,746
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,804
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,484
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,475,755
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 56,194
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               17,808
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,049
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                75,051
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              29,312
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,291
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           39,760
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      950
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  14
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 38,111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,966
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      12,397
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,397
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.17
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,152
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,627
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 21,825
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                12,817
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,341
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,999
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               12,425
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,266
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,159


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



I, Paul E. Martin, the Principal Financial Officer of Enstar Income Program 1984-1, L.P. (the "Partnership") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Partnership's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

- fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/  Paul E. MartinPaul E. MartinPrincipal Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2002
Exhibit 23.4
 D eGolyer and MacNaughton
 
    Very truly yours,/s/ DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTONDeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTONTexas Registered Engineering Firm F-716
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41638

STATE OF IDAHO
,

Plaintiff-Respondent
,

v.

JOSHUA JAMES STUECKLE, aka JOSHUS STEUCKLE, JOSHUA STUEKLE,
JOSHUA SCUECKLE
,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 741

Filed: September 26, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of twelve years , for sexual battery of a child sixteen or seventeen years of age

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilker son , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Joshua James Stueckle pled guilty to sexual battery of a child sixteen or seventeen years

of age . Idaho Code § 18

- 1508A . The district court sentenced Stueckle to a unified term of thirty

years, with a minimum period of confinement of twelve years

. Stueckle appeals asserting that

the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive se ntence

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we c onsider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Stueckle ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
§ 30.410 Can OWCP require an employee to be examined by another physician? ( a ) OWCP sometimes needs a second opinion from a medical specialist. The employee must submit to examination by a qualified physician who conforms to the standards regarding conflicts of interest adopted by OWCP as often and at such times and places as OWCP considers reasonably necessary. Also, OWCP may send a case file for second opinion review to a qualified physician who conforms to the standards regarding conflicts of interest adopted by OWCP where an actual examination is not needed, or where the employee is deceased.
( b ) If the initial examination is disrupted by someone accompanying the employee, OWCP will schedule another examination with a different qualified physician who conforms to the standards regarding conflicts of interest adopted by OWCP. The employee will not be entitled to have anyone else present at the subsequent examination unless OWCP decides that exceptional circumstances exist. For example, where a hearing-impaired employee needs an interpreter, the presence of an interpreter would be allowed.
( c ) OWCP may administratively close the claim and suspend adjudication of any pending matters if the employee refuses to attend a second opinion examination.
[71 FR 78534, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 84 FR 3052, Feb. 8, 2019]
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4023 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4023

 To eliminate unused sections of the United States Code, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2015

 Mr. Chabot (for himself, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Jackson Lee, 
 and Mr. Forbes) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To eliminate unused sections of the United States Code, 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 ``Clean Up the Code Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. REPEALS.

    The following provisions of title 18, United States Code, are 
repealed:
            (1) Section 46 relating to transportation of water 
        hyacinths.
            (2) Section 511A relating to unauthorized application of 
        theft prevention decal or device.
            (3) Section 707 relating to 4-H club emblem fraudulently 
        used.
            (4) Section 708 relating to Swiss Confederation coat of 
        arms.
            (5) Section 711 relating to ``Smokey Bear'' character or 
        name.
            (6) Section 711a relating to ``Woodsy Owl'' character, 
        name, or slogan.
            (7) Section 715 relating to ``The Golden Eagle Insignia''.
            (8) Chapter 89--Professions and Occupations.
            (9) Section 1921 relating to receiving Federal employees' 
        compensation after marriage.

SEC. 3. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Table of Chapters for Title 18.--The table of chapters for 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating 
to chapter 89.
    (b) Table of Sections for Chapter 3.--The table of sections for 
chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
item relating to section 46.
    (c) Table of Sections for Chapter 25.--The table of sections for 
chapter 25 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
item relating to section 511A.
    (d) Table of Sections for Chapter 33.--The table of sections for 
chapter 33 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking the item relating to section 707;
            (2) by striking the item relating to section 708;
            (3) by striking the item relating to section 711;
            (4) by striking the item relating to section 711a; and
            (5) by striking the item relating to section 715.
    (e) Table of Sections for Chapter 39.--The table of sections for 
chapter 93 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
item relating to section 1921.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00113-CV

Luis R. Colon

v.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, 

FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust, Not 

Individually but as Trustee for 

Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust

§

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2015-005687-1)

July 27, 2017

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Luis R. Colon shall pay all of the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth_____________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ruth Mireya Jasso, * From the 385th District Court

 of Midland County

Trial Court No. CR47206.

Vs. No. 11-17-00262-CR * September 30, 2019

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgments below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgments of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

258 

CA 10-01069 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

FS KIDS, LLC, DOING BUSINESS AS BUDWEY’S 

FOOD MARKET, MASK FOODS, INC., VALU HOME 

CENTERS, INC., KBLM FOODS, INC., DOING 

BUSINESS AS BLASDELL JUBILEE, KDJB 

FOODS, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS SAVE-A-LOT ORDER

LACKAWANNA, GAIGE & SON GROCERY, INC., 

DOING BUSINESS AS CORNING JUBILEE, TJ’S 

MARKET, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS HORSEHEADS 

JUBILEE, BB&T SUPERMARKETS INC., DOING 

BUSINESS AS ATTICA JUBILEE, BNR-LARSON, LLC, 

DOING BUSINESS AS CORFU IGA, AND GIFT EXPRESS 

OF NEW YORK, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS THE 

MARKET IN THE SQUARE, ON THEIR OWN BEHALF 

AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY 

SITUATED AS THEY, AS FORMER EMPLOYEE 

MEMBERS/PARTICIPANTS IN THE WHOLESALE AND 

RETAIL WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST OF NEW 

YORK, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, 

 

V

COMPENSATION RISK MANAGERS, LLC, 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.)

 

HITCHCOCK & CUMMINGS, LLP, NEW YORK CITY (CHRISTOPHER B. HITCHCOCK OF

COUNSEL), AND CONNORS & VILARDO, LLP, BUFFALO, FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, BUFFALO (KENNETH A. MANNING OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John M.

Curran, J.), entered April 14, 2010 in a breach of contract action. 

The order, among other things, denied in part defendant’s motion to

dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court.

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court