alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<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>                                          18,746
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,800
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    116,729
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           116,729
<LOANS>                                        197,131
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 350,088
<DEPOSITS>                                     282,799
<SHORT-TERM>                                    31,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,856
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,049
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 350,088
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,603
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,086
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   691
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                19,380
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,476
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,144
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,076
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  52
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,205
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,205
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,003
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    .063
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,836
<LOANS-PAST>                                       353
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,871
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      256
<RECOVERIES>                                        53
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,668
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,668
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Sydel D. Edwin Gould Services for Children, Appellant; Patricia D. et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated December 12, 1975, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and petition granted. The record supports a finding that the agency did make "diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship” (see Family Ct Act, § 614, subd 1, par [c]; *Matter of Joyce A. R.,*52 AD2d 882; *Matter of Ray A. M. [Sugarman],*48 AD2d 161, affd 37 NY2d 619; *Matter of Barbara P.,*71 Misc 2d 965). Moreover, a finding of lack of continuous or repeated contact with a child over a period of more than one year following the date on which such child came into the care of an authorized agency, obviates the need for proving the lack of any plan by the mother for the future of such child (Family Ct Act, § 614, subd 1, par [d]; *Matter of Orlando F.,*40 NY2d 103, 110). Latham, J. P., Rabin, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         43,895
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  58,105
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    7,916
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,092
<PP&E>                                         1,013,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                 41,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,234,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          450,797
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       389
<OTHER-SE>                                     485,246
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,234,131
<SALES>                                        299,615
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               301,371
<CGS>                                          148,056
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  148,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               97,731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             40,616
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                14,968
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            14,968
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   14,968
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.42
        



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27964]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 
21, 2005.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Academic Certification for Marine 
Corps Officer Candidate Program; NAVMC 10469; OMB Control Number 0703-
0011.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 3,500.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 3,500.
    Average Burden Per Response: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 875.
    Needs and Uses: Used by Marine Corps officer procurement personnel, 
this form provides a standardized method for determining the academic 
eligibility of applicants for all reserve officers candidate programs. 
Use of this form is the only accurate and specific method to determine 
a reserve officer applicant's academic qualifications. Each applicant 
interested in enrolling in an undergraduate or graduate reserve officer 
commission program completes and returns the form.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Lewis Oleinick.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Oleinick at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings, WHS/ESCD/Information Management 
Division, 1225 South Clark Street, Suite 504, Arlington, VA 22202-4326.

    Dated: December 15, 2004.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-27964 Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EXPEREXCHANGE, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DOCULEX, INC.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C08-03875 JCS

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL

MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 

Defendants have filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, which is set for hearing on

April 2, 2010. In order to rule on Defendants’ motion, the Court requires the following additional

materials:

1. Evidence for all counsel as to whom fees are sought that their rates are in line with

the prevailing rates in the particular geographical areas in which they practice in light

of their experience and qualifications. This evidence should consist of surveys,

awards in other cases, or declarations by practitioners who practice in the relevant

legal market. 

2. A chart listing all depositions Defendants’ counsel attended and the number and

names of the attorneys who attended those depositions, as well as the time spent by

each attorney at each of the depositions; where more than one attorney attended a

deposition, Defendants shall provide a declaration addressing why the participation of

more than one attorney was required.

3. A chart or declaration identifying any time entries listed on the time sheets provided

to the Court in which time was spent by new counsel to familiarize themselves with

the case.

4. A declaration addressing whether the exercise of billing judgment as to any time

entries is appropriate and, if so, identifying time entries that may be excluded from

the Court’s fee award, if any.

Defendants shall file these additional materials no later than March 26, 2010. Plaintiff’s

Case 3:08-cv-03875-JCS Document 114 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

counsel shall be permitted to address these new materials at oral argument and in addition, shall be

permitted to submit a supplemental brief to address the materials following the hearing, if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2010

___________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03875-JCS Document 114 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 2
214 A.2d 898.

#### Antonio Feole *vs.*Mario A. Pagano. Mario A. Pagano *vs.*Antonio Feole.

DECEMBER 10, 1965.

Present: Roberts, Paolino and Joslin, JJ. (

Per Curiam.

These cross actions of .trespass on the case for negligence were consolidated for trial and heard before a justice of the superior court sitting without a jury. In each case the decision was for Feole, and in the case he prosecuted it was for $20,000. Each case is before us on Pagano’s exception to the decision.

The causes of action arose out of a head-on collision between motor vehicles owned and operated by the respective parties. No purpose will be served by detailing the sharply conflicting evidence as to how the accident happened, it being sufficient to observe that the fact issue created turned on credibility. The trial justice in his bench decision summarized and evaluated the testimony and accepted Feole’s version of the accident. In these circumstances, Pagano, having conceded that the legal conclusion as to liability is correct if predicated on the facts as found, is burdened un*312der our rule with establishing that the trial justice in the course of the fact-finding process either misconceived or overlooked material evidence, or was clearly mistaken in his judgment of the credibility of the witnesses. *Krall*v. *M. A. Gammino Construction Co.,*97 R. I. 495, 199 A.2d 122. He has failed to meet that burden and the decision in each case must therefore stand.

*Guy E. Gallone, Martin E. Zucker,*for Antonio Feole.

*Gunning & LaFazia, Raymond A. LaFazia,*for Mario A. Pagano.

In each case the exception is overruled, and each case is remitted to the superior court for entry of judgment on the decision.
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

§ 63.6 Assignment of United States Government employees to consult, lecture, teach, engage in research, or demonstrate special skills. An employee of the United States Government who has been assigned for service abroad to consult, lecture, teach, engage in research, or demonstrate special skills, may be entitled to any or all of the following benefits when authorized by the Agency. ( a ) *Transportation.* Transportation and miscellaneous expenses in the United States and abroad, including baggage charges, and per diem in lieu of subsistence at the maximum rates allowable while in a travel status in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Travel Regulations. The participant shall be considered as remaining in a travel status during the entire period covered by his or her assignment unless otherwise designated.
( b ) *Advance of funds.* Advances of per diem as provided by law.
( c ) *Compensation.* Compensation in accordance with Civil Service rules; or in accordance with the grade in which the position occupied may be administratively classified; or Foreign Service Act, as amended.
( d ) *Allowances for cost of living and living quarters.* Allowances for living quarters, heat, fuel, light, and to compensate for the increased cost of living in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulations (Government Civilians, Foreign Areas), when not in a travel status as provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
( e ) *Books and educational materials allowance.* A reasonable allowance for books and educational materials. Such books and materials, unless otherwise specified, shall be selected by the employee and purchased and shipped by the Agency or its agent. At the conclusion of the assignment, the books and educational materials shall be transferred to and become the property of an appropriate local institution or be otherwise disposed of as directed by the Agency.
( f ) *Families and effects.* Cost of transportation of immediate family and household goods and effects when going to and returning from posts of assignment in foreign countries in accordance with the provisions of the Foreign Service Regulations of the United States of America.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2754 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2754

To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 to eliminate a limitation 
                              on benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2005

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 to eliminate a limitation 
                              on benefits.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 3(f)(3) of 
the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231b(f)(3)) is amended 
by striking ``(ii) after an annuity has been certified for payment'' 
and all that follows through ``and (iii)'' and inserting ``and (ii)''. 
The amendment made by this Act shall apply with respect to months 
beginning on or after January 1, 1978.
                                 <all>
```
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases. /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER REGARDING HEARING

ON CLASS MEMBER NOTICE

Since various matters — including the Schwab defendants’ motion to stay this action

pending their interlocutory appeal and their motion to strike — have already been rolled into the

final pretrial conference scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on April 26, 2010, the class member notice

issue (see Dkt. No. 609) will also be heard at the final pretrial conference instead of at a separate

hearing. As such, the hearing scheduled on April 29 pertaining to class member notice is

RESCHEDULED TO 2:00 P.M. ON APRIL 26.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 610 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 64
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 64 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

§ 64.5 Criteria for approval of program. To obtain approval of its program of cultural exchanges, a foreign government is required to show that: ( a ) The cultural exchange program is of the type described in section 102(a)(2)(i) of the Act;
( b ) The cultural exchange program is conducted for a purpose comparable to the purpose stated in section 101 of the Act; and
( c ) A grant under such program will not provide assistance with respect to any expenses incurred by or for any member of the family or household of such Federal employee.
AND DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS

Case 3:08-cv-05048-MMC Document 121 Filed 06/04/10 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:08-cv-05048-MMC Document 121 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:08-cv-05048-MMC Document 121 Filed 06/04/10 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:08-cv-05048-MMC Document 121 Filed 06/04/10 Page 4 of 5
unredacted

; plaintiffs are

DIRECTED to file under seal the unredacted version no later than June 7, 2010. See General Order

No. 62 (providing that upon grant of motion to file under seal,

requesting party shall e-file document under seal according to procedures in FAQs on ECF website).

June 4, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-05048-MMC Document 121 Filed 06/04/10 Page 5 of 5
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dean Ramgeet, Appellant.

[717 NYS2d 5]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), entered January 31, 2000, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment, same court and Justice, rendered November 12, 1999, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, 1 to 3 years and 2 to 6 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, motion denied and the judgment reinstated.

Defendant was sentenced on November 12, 1999 and filed a timely notice of appeal. With the appeal pending, defendant moved to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10 on the grounds that trial counsel was ineffective, that inadmissible evidence was admitted and that the jury had been improperly charged. That motion was improperly granted since the court relied on matters appearing on the record in vacating the conviction, defendant’s appeal was pending and there were sufficient facts in the record to permit adequate review upon appeal (CPL 440.10 [2] [b]; *see also, People v Swackhammer,*260 AD2d 939, 941, *lv denied*93 NY2d 1028).

In any event, review of the record reveals that defendant received meaningful representation. Defense counsel made pretrial motions, discussed the case with defendant, reviewed the possibility of a plea bargain, prepared him to testify, presented coherent opening and closing arguments, made relevant objections and vigorously cross-examined the undercover officer. Even though defendant and the trial court disagreed with counsel’s judgment to not call a particular witness, there were several legitimate strategic reasons for counsel’s decision. Accordingly, defendant received meaningful representation *(People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713). Concur — Lerner, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
#### Smith *v.*Randall *et al.*

November 13, 1912.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Ellis. Eulton superior court. January 20, 1912.

*Bobert L. Bodgers,*for plaintiff. *Moore & Pomeroy, Daley & Chambers,*and *W. W. Hood,*for defendants.

Atkinson, J.

1. An assignment of error, which complained of the refusal of the judge to postpone the hearing of argument of the case on demurrer, while the case was pending in the Supreme Court on exception to a refusal of an interlocutory injunction, was not mentioned in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, and will therefore be regarded as abandoned.

2. The petition sought to set aside a judgment of the superior court, and an execution founded thereon, and a levy of the execution; also to set aside judgments of dismissal of two claims which had been interposed against the sale of the property under the execution, and reinstatement of such claim eases; and to enjoin the sheriff and his deputies from attempting further to enforce the execution against the plaintiff’s property; and also to have declared vacant the offices of the sheriff and his deputies, because of their alleged failure to comply with the statute in regard' to making oath and giving bond and causing the same to be entered on the minutes of the court. *Held,*in view of the allegations made in the petition, that the action was properly dismissed on demurrer. . *Judgment affirmed.*

*All ■ the Justices concur.*
#### DOUGLAS, Respondent, v. MILLER, Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 1, 1905.)

Action by William A. Douglas, as receiver, against Laurentine Y. Miller, impleaded, etc. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion in Douglas v. Miller et al. (decision in which is handed down herewith) 92 N. Y. Supp. 514.
### §19235. Person or entity of concern prohibition

No person published on the list under section 1237(b) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) or entity identified under section 1260h 1 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (10 U.S.C. 113 note; Public Law 116–283) may receive or participate in any grant, award, program, support, or other activity under—

(1) the Directorate established in part G of subchapter III of this chapter;

(2) section 3722a(b)(1) of title 15, as added by section 10621; or

(3) the Manufacturing USA Program, as improved and expanded under part D of subchapter II of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title VI, §10636, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1669.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 10621, referred to in par. (2), means section 10621 of Pub. L. 117–167.

Part D of subchapter II of this chapter, referred to in par. (3), was in the original "subtitle E of title II of this division", meaning subtitle E (§§10261–10263) of title II of div. B of Pub. L. 117–167, which is classified principally to part D of subchapter II of this chapter. For complete classification of subtitle E to the Code, see Tables.

1 So in original. Probably should be "1260H".