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

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM DIONICS, INC.'S  QUARTERLY  REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                         628,900
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                  185,900
<ALLOWANCES>                   0
<INVENTORY>                    522,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               1,361,100
<PP&E>                         1,698,500
<DEPRECIATION>                 1,648,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 1,463,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          396,100
<BONDS>                        1,175,200
<COMMON>                       38,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0
<PREFERRED>                    0
<OTHER-SE>                     1,522,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   1,463,100
<SALES>                        352,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               352,800
<CGS>                          247,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  341,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             17,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                300
<INCOME-TAX>                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            300
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                   300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                  .000




</TABLE>
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9716 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget 

AN ACT 

To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to require the Congressional Budget 

Office to provide baseline updates, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 9716 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Increasing Baseline 

3 Updates Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE UPDATES TO 

5 BASELINE. 

6 Section 202(e) of the Congressional Budget and Im7 poundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 602(e)) is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(4)(A) The Director shall, to the extent prac10 ticable, submit to the Committees on the Budget of 

11 the House of Representatives and the Senate at 

12 least two updates to the baseline submitted under 

13 paragraph (1). At least one of the updates shall in14 clude economic data used by the Director to cal15 culate such update. 

16 ‘‘(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be con17 strued to limit the Director from providing any other 

18 update to the baseline during such year.’’. 

19 SEC. 3. ANNUAL TECHNICAL BUDGET DATA SUBMISSION BY 

20 THE PRESIDENT. 

21 Section 1106 of title 31, United States Code, is 

22 amended by adding at the end the following: 

23 ‘‘(d) On or before February 1 of each calendar year, 

24 the President shall submit to Congress technical budget 

25 data for the fiscal year beginning in the ensuing calendar 

26 year, which shall include up-to-date estimates for current 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 9716 RFS

1 year and prior year data and credit reestimates for the 

2 current year (as included in the Federal credit supplement 

3 of such budget).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 10.16

The First National Bank of Mifflintown

Split Dollar Agreement

First Amendment



FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIFFLINTOWN

SPLIT DOLLAR AGREEMENT

DATED MAY 14, 2002

FOR

NANCY BRATTON

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is entered into this 14 day of December, 2010, by and between THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIFFLINTOWN, a federally-chartered commercial bank located in
Mifflintown, Pennsylvania (the Company), and NANCY BRATTON (Director).

WHEREAS, the
Company and Director executed the Split Dollar Agreement on May 14, 2002 (the Agreement);

WHEREAS,
Article 7 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended upon mutual consent of the parties thereto;

WHEREAS, the life insurance policy originally subject to the Agreement has been exchanged for a new policy, which continues to be
subject to the Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the parties anticipate the possibility of future policy exchanges;

NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the Company and the Director as follows:

Section 1.1 of the Agreement shall be amended and replaced as follows:



| | 1.1 | Insurer means the insurance company issuing the Policy on the life of the Director.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1.2 of the Agreement shall be amended and replaced as follows:



| | 1.2 | Policy or Policies means the individual insurance policy or policies adopted by the Company for purposes of insuring the
Directors life under this Agreement.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All references in the Agreement to Jefferson Pilot Financial and
to Policy Number AH5215608 shall be hereinafter disregarded.



1



---

The First National Bank of Mifflintown

Split Dollar Agreement

First Amendment





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date
indicated above.



|                  |  |  |  |                                        |  |                       
|----------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|DIRECTOR:         |  |  |  | COMPANY:                              
|                  |  | 
|                  |  |  |  | THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIFFLINTOWN
|                  |  |  | 
|/s/ Nancy Bratton |  |  |  | By                                     |  | /s/ John P. Henry, III
|NANCY BRATTON     |  |  |  | Title                                  |  | Chairman              



2
#### § 583.340 What debarment or suspension obligations apply to transactions and contracts related to a project?

The parties to an agreement must ensure that all contracts and transactions related to an agreement issued under this part comply with the suspension and debarment regulations in 2 CFR part 180 and 2 CFR part 1400.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            1805
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       10
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1815
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               38
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1815
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 14900
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 177
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  13893
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              13893
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (255)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     13638
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   237.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   237.48
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             MAI SYSTEMS CORPORATION
                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
         Years ended December 31, 1994 and 1995 (as restated) and 1996



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   1994      1995      1996
                                                --------  --------  --------
                                            (in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                                             <C>       <C>       <C>
Income before extraordinary item                $  3,628  $  8,623  $(13,487)

Extraordinary item                                   916     1,566        --
                                                --------  --------  --------
Net income (loss)                               $  4,544  $ 10,189  $(13,487)
                                                ========  ========  ========
Number of shares of Common Stock expected
  to be issued pursuant to the Plan of
  Reorganization                                   6,820     6,820     6,820

Weighted average number of
  shares of Common Stock issued during the year       --        --       489

Weighted average number of shares of Common
  Stock equivalents outstanding                       --       904        --
                                                --------  --------  --------
                                                   6,820     7,724     7,309
                                                ========  ========  ========
Primary and fully diluted income (loss) per
  share of Common Stock:
Income (loss) before extraordinary item         $   0.53  $   1.12  $  (1.85)
Extraordinary item                                  0.14      0.20        --
                                                --------  --------  --------
Net income (loss)                               $   0.67  $   1.32  $  (1.85)
                                                ========  ========  ========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>                    0000760497
<NAME>                   INFOAMERICA, INC.
       
<S>     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                   $    34,201
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>            $    94,487
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>         $   128,688
<PP&E>                   $   106,298
<DEPRECIATION>           $    77,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>           $   159,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>    $   258,740
<BONDS>                  $    50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                 $    88,572
<OTHER-SE>               $ 1,977,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  $159,208
<SALES>                  $   723,171
<TOTAL-REVENUES>         $   732,345
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>            $   688,809
<OTHER-EXPENSES>         $    12,231
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>          $    31,305
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>      $    31,305
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>             $    31,305
<EPS-PRIMARY>            $      0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>            $      0.01

        



</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-580

_____________________________

IDEAL PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTE 

INC.,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF NURSING,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the State of Florida, Board of 

Nursing.

Joe R. Baker, Jr., Executive Director.

April 22, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Because the notice of appeal was untimely filed, this cause is 

hereby dismissed. This disposition is without prejudice to 

Appellant’s right, if any it has, to seek relief by motion in the lower 

tribunal.

WOLF, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Gregory Ochalek, Miami, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Marlene K. Stern, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
DIGICON INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                       595
<INVENTORY>                                      1,388
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,471
<PP&E>                                         112,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                  63,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,191
<BONDS>                                         22,510
<COMMON>                                           111
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,396
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,246
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,824
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (5)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,829
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,829
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John T. Golinski, Appellant.

Appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered July 8, 1977 in Albany County, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and (2) the judgment entered thereon. During the period December, 1972 through June, 1973 defendant was the recipient of unemployment insurance benefits, and in a decision filed March 19, 1975, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that, as a result of his willful false statements, he had received overpayments of benefits totaling $1,293.75 which were ruled to be recoverable. Although advised in the board’s decision of his right to appeal to this court therefrom, defendant took no appeal, and on April 11, 1977 the present action was instituted to recover the overpayments. In his verified answer, defendant interposed three affirmative defenses, to wit: that he made no willful misrepresentations which would justify recovery of the alleged overpayments; that he accepted the payments in good faith; and that the rejection of his contentions of good faith and lack of intent to misrepresent was without a rational basis, arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, in excess of legal authority and, consequently, violative of his right of due process. Thereafter, Special Term granted plaintiffs motion for an order striking defendant’s answer and granting plaintiff summary judgment, and this appeal ensued. The sole question presented for our review is whether or not defendant may collaterally attack by his answer in this action the board’s decision that he willfully misrepresented his eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, and we hold that he cannot. The board was clearly authorized to determine, as a question of fact, if defendant had been guilty of willful misrepresentation in order to obtain benefits *(Matter of Baxter [Levine],*50 AD2d 642; *Matter of Bomwell [Levine],*49 AD2d 790). Accordingly, being within its jurisdiction, its action in so doing could only be attacked by defendant directly via an appeal to this court as statutorily provided (Labor Law, §§ 624, 626), and Special Term properly struck defendant’s answer and granted plaintiff summary judgment (cf. *Matter of Foy v Schecter,*1 NY2d 604). Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
#### § 723.14 Determination of amount of penalty.

The Office shall determine the amount of any civil penalty by converting the total number of points assigned under 30 CFR 723.13 to a dollar amount, according to the following schedule:

| Points | Dollars |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | 82 |
| 2 | 164 |
| 3 | 246 |
| 4 | 327 |
| 5 | 410 |
| 6 | 491 |
| 7 | 573 |
| 8 | 651 |
| 9 | 736 |
| 10 | 819 |
| 11 | 899 |
| 12 | 982 |
| 13 | 1,061 |
| 14 | 1,145 |
| 15 | 1,230 |
| 16 | 1,309 |
| 17 | 1,391 |
| 18 | 1,475 |
| 19 | 1,555 |
| 20 | 1,636 |
| 21 | 1,720 |
| 22 | 1,801 |
| 23 | 1,882 |
| 24 | 1,963 |
| 25 | 2,045 |
| 26 | 2,455 |
| 27 | 2,864 |
| 28 | 3,271 |
| 29 | 3,527 |
| 30 | 4,091 |
| 31 | 4,499 |
| 32 | 4,910 |
| 33 | 5,319 |
| 34 | 5,729 |
| 35 | 6,137 |
| 36 | 6,547 |
| 37 | 6,956 |
| 38 | 7,365 |
| 39 | 7,773 |
| 40 | 8,182 |
| 41 | 8,594 |
| 42 | 9,002 |
| 43 | 9,408 |
| 44 | 9,819 |
| 45 | 10,228 |
| 46 | 10,638 |
| 47 | 11,046 |
| 48 | 11,457 |
| 49 | 11,864 |
| 50 | 12,273 |
| 51 | 12,681 |
| 52 | 13,093 |
| 53 | 13,502 |
| 54 | 13,912 |
| 55 | 14,322 |
| 56 | 14,730 |
| 57 | 15,137 |
| 58 | 15,546 |
| 59 | 15,957 |
| 60 | 16,365 |
| 61 | 16,774 |
| 62 | 17,183 |
| 63 | 17,593 |
| 64 | 18,002 |
| 65 | 18,410 |
| 66 | 18,821 |
| 67 | 19,230 |
| 68 | 19,637 |
| 69 | 20,047 |
| 70 | 20,457 |

Table 1 to § 723.14

[45 FR 58783, Sept. 4, 1980, as amended at 62 FR 63276, Nov. 28, 1997; 66 FR 58646, Nov. 21, 2001; 70 FR 70700, Nov. 22, 2005; 74 FR 34492, July 15, 2009; 79 FR 18447, Apr. 2, 2014; 81 FR 44540, July 8, 2016; 82 FR 9353, Feb. 6, 2017; 83 FR 10615, Mar. 12, 2018; 84 FR 10675, Mar. 22, 2019; 85 FR 20835, Apr. 15, 2020; 86 FR 29514, June 2, 2021; 87 FR 15885, Mar. 21, 2022; 88 FR 24335, Apr. 20, 2023; 89 FR 23910, Apr. 5, 2024]
#### Town of Farmington *v.*Kevin V. Dowling

(14522)

Callahan, Berdon, Norcott, Katz and Ment, Js.

Argued January 14

decision released February 9, 1993

*593
      *Victor J. Dowling,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Gregory T. D’Auria,*with whom was *Charles L.*Howard, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we have concluded that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The underlying issues have been fully considered in the opinion of the Appellate Court; *Farmington*v. *Dowling,*26 Conn. App. 545, 602 A.2d 1047 (1992); and it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein.
January 31, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

REUBEN COLBERT, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00573-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This court today heard a motion for rehearing filed by appellant Rueben 

Colbert. We order that the former judgment of December 20, 2012, be vacated, set 

aside, and annulled. We further order the Memorandum Opinion of December 20, 

2012, be withdrawn, as stated in our Substitute Memorandum Opinion.

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2023106EN.01000101.xml

| 22.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11053 – GROUP CREDIT AGRICOLE / MICHELIN / WATEA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 106/01)

On 15 March 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11053. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11053. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph De Grandis, Frank De Forte and Ernest Zundel, Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Appeal by each of the three named defendants (De Grandis, De Forte and Zundel) from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, entered June 21, 1960 after a jury trial, convicting him of (a) conspiracy to violate section 340 of the General Business Law (Penal Law, § 580, subd. l); (b) coercion (Penal Law, § 530); and (c) extortion (Penal Law, §§ 850, 851), and imposing sentence. As to each defendant, judgment affirmed. Defendants cannot invoke the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the union records which were received in evidence. Such records were not the defendants’ private, personal papers; they were the property of the union. Whatever possession the defendants had of these records was merely in their capacity as representatives of the union, and not in their private or individual capacity *(United States*v. *White,*322 U. S. 694; see, also, *Mapp*v. *Ohio,*367 U. S. 643, 646-657, 661-665; *Davis*v. *United States,*328 U. S. 582, 587, as to the interrelationship between U. S. Const. Amendts., Fourth, Fifth). We have examined all the other contentions made by the appellants and find them to be untenable. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.