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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         200,163
<SECURITIES>                                   596,365
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,276
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         253,765
<DEPRECIATION>                                 211,876
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,047,243
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,632,998
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,605,971)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,047,243
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,306
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (85,203)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (85,203)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (85,203)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 651.31 Modification of the CX list.

The Army list of CXs is subject to continual review and modification, in consultation with CEQ. Additional modifications can be implemented through submission, through channels, to ASA (I&E) for consideration and consultation. Subordinate Army headquarters may not modify the CX list through supplements to this part. Upon approval, proposed modifications to the list of CXs will be published in the Federal Register, providing an opportunity for public review and comment.
EXHIBIT 32.2
          Certification of the Principal Financial Officer pursuant to
                 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics  Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2007 as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof,  I, David O'Neil,
Treasurer and Principal Financial 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 this report fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: November 12, 2007


                                            /s/ David O'Neil
                                            ---------------------------
                                            David O'Neil, Treasurer and
                                            Principal Financial Officer



                                       16
#### Kate Bruckman, appellee, v. Sam Samson et al., on appeal of Ida Samson, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,244.

Bill for partition. Decree for complainant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Hugo M. Friend, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 29, 1925.

Albert Sabath, for appellant.

Landfield & Levin, for appellee; I. Archer Levin, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-1088 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION and WH IRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., Defendants-Appellees, and GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ON MOTION Before NEWMAN, RADER, and LINN, Circuit Judges

. RADER, Circuit Judge

. O R D E R LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (LG) mo ve to dismiss the appeal filed by Whirlpool Corp oration and Whirlpoo l Patents Company (Whirlpool). LG states that General El ectric Company joins the motion. Whirlpool opposes. LG replies. The parties also submit letters in support of their positions. Whirlpool sued LG and General Electric fo r infringement of two patents. LG and General Electric filed count erclaims seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement of both patents, declaratory judgments of invalidity of both patents on various grounds, and a declaratory judgment of unenforceability of one of the patents. The parties filed various motions for su mmary judgment, but LG and General Electric did not file motions for summary judgment concerning all iss ues underlying the de claratory judgmentcounterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement of the first patent and invalidity of the second pat ent. The district court denied the other summary judgment motions as moot and ent ered a “judgment.” Wh irlpool filed an appeal. Whirlpool argues that it can appeal, des pite the lack of entry of a judgment dismissing or denying the defendant s’ counterclaims, because th e district court’s intent to deny those counterclaims is clear from the circumstances. We disagree. As LG notes, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment did not raise all of the issues that are raised by the counterclaims. Thus , by denying summary judgment only on the issues raised by motions for summary judgmen t, the district court did not clearly decide all of the relief sought by the counterclaimants. Because not all claims for relief were disposed of, and no judgment was entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), there is no final judgm ent and the appeal must be dismissed as premature. Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc. , 339 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2003); International Elec. Tech. Co rp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co. , --- F.3d ---, 2007 WL 189341 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 26, 2007). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to dismiss is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

_____ March 1, 2007

_________ /s/ Randall R. Rader

_______ Date Randall R. Rader Circuit Judge

2007-1088 - 2 -cc: David A. Boehnen, Esq. Larry S. Nixon, Esq. Richard L. Stroup, Esq. s8 ISSUED AS A MANDAT E: __________

____________

2007-1088 - 3 -
#### BRING v. N.C. STATE BAR

No. 355PA97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 655

Motion by respondent (N.C. State Bar) to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question denied 4 September 1997. Petition by petitioner (Ellen Bring) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 September 1997.
#### § 516.52 Expert witnesses.

Requests for present or former DA personnel as expert or opinion witnesses from DOJ or other attorneys representing the United States will be referred to Litigation Division unless the request involves a matter that has been delegated by Litigation Division to an SJA or legal adviser. In no event, may present or former DA personnel furnish expert or opinion testimony in a case in which the United States has an interest for a party whose interests are adverse to the interests of the United States.
### §8469. Withholding of State income taxes

(a) The Office shall, in accordance with this section, enter into an agreement with any State within 120 days of a request for agreement from the proper State official. The agreement shall provide that the Office shall withhold State income tax in the case of the monthly annuity of any annuitant who voluntarily requests, in writing, such withholding. The amounts withheld during any calendar quarter shall be held in the Fund and disbursed to the States during the month following that calendar quarter.

(b) An annuitant may have in effect at any time only one request for withholding under this section, and an annuitant may not have more than two such requests in effect during any one calendar year.

(c) Subject to subsection (b), an annuitant may change the State designated by that annuitant for purposes of having withholdings made, and may request that the withholdings be remitted in accordance with such change. An annuitant also may revoke any request of that annuitant for withholding. Any change in the State designated or revocation is effective on the first day of the month after the month in which the request or the revocation is processed by the Office, but in no event later than on the first day of the second month beginning after the day on which such request or revocation is received by the Office.

(d) This section does not give the consent of the United States to the application of a statute which imposes more burdensome requirements on the United States than on employers generally, or which subjects the United States or any annuitant to a penalty or liability because of this section. The Office may not accept pay from a State for services performed in withholding State income taxes from annuities. Any amount erroneously withheld from an annuity and paid to a State by the Office shall be repaid by the State in accordance with regulations issued by the Office.

(e) For the purpose of this section—

(1) the term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States; and

(2) the term "annuitant" includes a survivor who is receiving an annuity from the Fund.

(Added Pub. L. 99–335, title I, §101(a), June 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 576.)
#### Fannie Fink et al., Respondents, v. Murray Marcovitz et al., Respondents, and Theodore E. Thaler et al., Appellants. Theodore E. Thaler et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Cord Meyer Development Company et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Motion by plaintiffs-respondents to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, and appeal dismissed. Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
(June 17, 1963)

#### John Desiderio et al., Respondents, v. Chain Locations of America, Inc., Appellant.

In an action to recover rent due under a lease of certain real property, damages for repairs made by plaintiffs, and reimbursement for the amounts expended by plaintiffs for the payment of premiums upon certain public liability and fire insurance policies and for the payment of additional taxes on the premises, defendant appeals: (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 6, 1962 upon the court’s decision after a nonjury trial, in plaintiff’s favor for $4,607.47, together with interest and costs; and (2) from an order of said court, dated January 3, 1963, which denied defendant’s motion for a new trial. Judgment modified on the law and the facts: (a) by reducing the principal recovery from $4,607.47 to $3,345.41; (b) by adjusting the amount awarded as interest to an amount based upon such reduced principal recovery; and (c) by reducing the total amount of the recovery accordingly. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs; the plaintiffs’ claim for reimbursement for expenditures incurred in closing the opening in the front of the building on the premises is severed from the action; and such claim is remitted to the trial court for a new trial limited to the issue of the amount of the damages to which plaintiffs are entitled incident thereto, and for the entry of an appropriate judgment thereon. The findings of fact contained or implicit in the decision below which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. Order denying motion for a new trial affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, in its award of damages the trial court erroneously included an item of $14.91 as to which no proof was adduced at the trial, although such item was set forth in plaintiffs’ bill of particulars. We also find that the inclusion of the item of $1,100 for plaintiffs’ expense in closing the opening in the front of the building was improper. When defendant operated its business on the premises the covering of this part of the front of the building consisted of plate glass. We do not believe it was proper to charge defendant with the cost of an installation, in this opening, of a door, frame, returns, false ceiling and incidentals. Despite our view that defendant should not be charged for such installation, we believe that, under all the facts and circumstances shown in the record, the installation was not such an exercise of dominion *635by plaintiffs over the premises as to constitute a surrender and acceptance of the leasehold. We are also of the opinion that plaintiffs are not entitled to an award for the premiums on the insurance policies. The policies contemplated by the lease were to name not only the plaintiffs but also the defendant as the insured parties; and the policies which plaintiffs procured did not so name the defendant as one of the insured. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 950.35 Approval of Wyoming abandoned mine land reclamation plan amendments.

(a) Wyoming certification of completing all known coal-related impacts is accepted, effective May 25, 1984.

(b) The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to OSM, the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register and the State citations or a brief description of each amendment. The amendments in this table are listed in order of the date of final publication in the Federal Register.

| Original amendment submission date | Date of final publication | Citation/description |
| --- | --- | --- |
| December 16, 1991 | April 13, 1992 | W.S. 35-11-1201 through 1304; Chs I through VIII of State's AML rules. |
| April 21, 1995 | February 21, 1996 | W.S. 35-11-1206(a), (b); -1209(a), (b). |
| September 1, 2005 | March 23, 2006 | W.S. 35-11-1206(a). W.S. 35-11-1206(b). W.S. 35-11-1209. W.S. 35-11-1209(vii). |
| March 21, 2008 | October 3, 2008 | W.S. 35-11-1210(b) |
| July 21, 2020 | October 26, 2021 | Repeal and replace Certified AML Plan. Response to 884 letter and State initiative streamlining of Plan to be consistent with changes to federal program and extends limited liability protection for certain coal and noncoal reclamation projects. |

[[62 FR 9959](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/62-FR-9959), Mar. 5, 1997, as amended at [71 FR 14645](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/71-FR-14645), Mar. 23, 2006; [73 FR 57541](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/73-FR-57541), Oct. 3, 2008; [86 FR 59024](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/86-FR-59024), Oct. 26, 2021]
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14

                                   SCHEDULE A
                                       TO
                                  EXHIBIT 10.13

      Rurban Financial Corp. (the "Registrant") has entered into Change in
Control Agreements with the executive officers of the Registrant identified
below, which Change in Control Agreements are substantially identical to the
Change in Control Agreement, executed March 9, 2006 and effective as of March 1,
2006, by and between the Registrant and Duane L. Sinn, Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, a copy of which was filed as
Exhibit 10.13 to the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2005 (the "2005 Form 10-K").

      In accordance with Rule 12b-31 promulgated under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Item 601(b)(10)(iii) of Regulation S-K, the following table
identifies those executive officers of the Registrant with whom the Registrant
has entered into Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreements similar to that
included as Exhibit 10.13 to the 2005 Form 10-K:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                             CURRENT OFFICES HELD WITH                 EFFECTIVE DATE     EXECUTION DATE
          NAME           THE REGISTRANT AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES            OF AGREEMENT       OF AGREEMENT
<S>                   <C>                                              <C>                <C>
Henry R. Thiemann     President, Chief Executive Officer and           March 1, 2006      March 9, 2006
                      Director of Exchange Bank; President, Chief
                      Executive Officer and Director of RFCBC,
                      Inc.; President and Director of Rurban
                      Mortgage Company

Jeffrey D. Sewell     President, Chief Executive Officer and           March 1, 2006      March 10, 2006
                      Director of Rurban Operations Corp.;
                      Director of Rurbanc Data Services, Inc.;
                      Director of Reliance Financial Services, N.A.

Mark K. Klein         President, Chief Executive Officer and           March 1, 2006      March 9, 2006
                      Director of The State Bank and Trust Company
                      and Director of Rurban Operations Corp.
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-104703, 333-60942, 333-59041, 333-59043, 333-47433, 333-09549 and 333-03769
of Serologicals Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated February 27, 2004
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to the Company's change in it method of accounting for
goodwill and other intangible assets to conform with Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 142) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Serologicals Corporation for the year ended December 28, 2003.

Atlanta, Georgia
March 9, 2004
### §1639j. Exclusion from Federal preemption

Nothing in this subchapter, subchapter V, or any regulation, rule, or requirement promulgated in accordance with this subchapter or subchapter V shall be construed to preempt any remedy created by a State or Federal statutory or common law right.

(Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 966, title II, §296, as added Pub. L. 114–216, §1, July 29, 2016, 130 Stat. 838.)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6408
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CYRUS JONATHAN GEORGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-78) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cyrus Jonathan George, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Edward Johnston, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Cyrus Jonathan George appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his motion to alter or amend his sentence. We have independently reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. George , No. CR-90-78 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 25, 2003). 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
## COURT OF APPEALS SECO ND DISTRICT OF T EXAS FORT WORTH N O

. 2

- 1 0

- 0 1 3

- C V
I N R E U N I V E R S A L U N D E R W R I T E R S R E L A T O R O F T E X A S I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y

- - - - - - - - - - - - O R I G I N A L P R O C E E D I N G

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

### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - T h e c o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d r e l a t o r ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f m a n d a m u s a n d i s

o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t a l l r e l i e f s h o u l d b e d e n i e d

. A c c o r d i n g l y , r e l a t o r ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r

w r i t o f m a n d a m u s i s d e n i e d a n d t h e s t a y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s i n c a u s e

n u m b e r 1 4 1

- 2 3 7 0 6 9

- 0 9 i n t h e 1 4 1 s t D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f T a r r a n t C o u n t y i s h e r e b y l i f t e d

. R e l a t o r s h a l l p a y a l l c o s t s o f t h i s o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g , f o r w h i c h l e t

e x e c u t i o n i s s u e
. P E R C U R I A M

P A N E L : M E I E R a n d D A U P H I N O T , J J

. D E L I V E R E D : M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 1 0

1 S e e T e x
. R

. A p p
. P

. 4 7

. 4

.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph Tomaselli, Respondent, v. Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal from order of Cayuga County Court sustaining the writ of habeas corpus and directing that relator be discharged from custody.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.