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

<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000

<S>                                <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                     JUN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                       NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<CASH>                                           3,445
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,458
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                         449,355
<DEPRECIATION>                                 249,828
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 298,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        11,296
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   298,284
<SALES>                                         19,482
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,850
<CGS>                                           13,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,883
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 608
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,359
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,777
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,582
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,582
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71


</TABLE>
### §2136. Registration of research facilities, handlers, carriers and unlicensed exhibitors

Every research facility, every intermediate handler, every carrier, and every exhibitor not licensed under section 2133 of this title shall register with the Secretary in accordance with such rules and regulations as he may prescribe.

(Pub. L. 89–544, §6, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; Pub. L. 91–579, §7, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1561; Pub. L. 94–279, §6, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 418.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–279 inserted ", every intermediate handler, every carrier," after "research facility".

1970—Pub. L. 91–579 inserted reference to exhibitors not licensed under section 2133 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–579 effective one year after Dec. 24, 1970, see section 23 of Pub. L. 91–579, set out as a note under section 2131 of this title.
#### Walter J. SZAJNA, Administrator of the Estate of Edward Randall Knapp, Plaintiff, v. BESSEMER AND LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. ENICK TRUCKING, INC., Third-Party Defendant. Walter J. SZAJNA, Administrator of the Estate of Edward Randall Knapp, Plaintiff, v. ENICK TRUCKING, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. BESSEMER AND LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant.

Civ. A. Nos. 66-1496, 66-1497.

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

May 21, 1970.

Ronald D. Ecker, Martin E. Geary, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

George Hardy Rowley, Voorhies, Dilley, Keck & Rowley, Greenville, Pa., for Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Co.

Wilbur McCoy Otto, Dickie, MeCamey & Chilcote, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Enick Trucking, Inc.

OPINION AND ORDER

MARSH, Chief Judge.

This action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and under the common law was tried to a jury which found that neither defendant was guilty of negligence with respect to the death of plaintiff’s decedent. The plaintiff has filed a motion for new trial contending that “the Court erred in charging the jury on Contributory Negligence when there was no evidence of Contributory Negligence”.1 In our opinion the motion should be denied.

There was in this case circumstantial evidence of contributory negligence, similar to that discussed in Gans v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, 319 F.2d 802 (3d Cir. 1963), which justified the instructions on contributory negligence.

*577In any event, however, plaintiff could not have been prejudiced by the instructions on contributory negligence in view of the jury’s findings, in answer to special interrogatories, that neither defendant was negligent. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2111; Rule 61, Fed.R.Civ.P.; Lowe v. Taylor Steel Products Co., 373 F.2d 65, 68 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 858, 88 S.Ct. 85, 19 L.Ed.2d 122 (1967); Bass v. Dehner, 103 F.2d 28, 34 (10th Cir. 1939). See also: Sanders v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 108 F.Supp. 528, 532 (W.D.Pa.1952), aff'd 204 F.2d 436 (3d Cir. 1953), cert. denied 346 U.S. 916, 74 S.Ct. 278, 98 L.Ed. 411 (1953).

An appropriate order will be entered.

1

. Other reasons advanved by plaintiff is his motion were orally withdrawn by counsel at oral argument.
Exhibit 31.1

 

 

I, Alan B. Levan, certify that:

| 1) | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of BFC Financial Corporation; and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2) | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date:  April 29, 2013

 

 

By: /s/ Alan B. Levan                                                

  Alan B. Levan,

  Chief Executive Officer

 

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 

 

March 21, 2018 

p0314 

Order 

 

Clerk 

March 21, 2018 

156370 

SAAD AKRAM BAHODA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 156370 

 COA: 332313 

Macomb CC: 2015-001714-CZ 

STEVEN M. KAPLAN, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Joseph /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

Jul y 3, 2014

N o. 04

- 12

- 00823

- CV

Joel M. HAILEY

, Appellant

v.

Joseph PADUH III, Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Joe Perry Corzine, Deceased, and

Stephen P. Takas Jr., Trustee of the Joe Perry Corzine Trust, and Successor Independent

Executor of the Estate of James L. Corzine, Deceased,

Appellee s

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- PC

- 0856A

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellee’s Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for

Rehearing and En Banc Reconsideration is GRANTED.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 3rd day of July, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 OF THREE-FIVE
SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS EXHIBIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED FILED FOR
PURPOSES OF SECTION 11 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND SECTION 18 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE LIABILITY OF SUCH
SECTIONS, NOR SHALL IT BE DEEMED A PART OF ANY OTHER FILING WHICH INCORPORATES
THIS REPORT BY REFERENCE, UNLESS SUCH OTHER FILING EXPRESSLY INCORPORATES THIS
EXHIBIT BY REFERENCE.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          45,413
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                       807
<INVENTORY>                                     12,865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,828
<PP&E>                                          66,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,528
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              127
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,000
<SALES>                                         39,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,162
<CGS>                                           29,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,385
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    24
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (604)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,357
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,770)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,587
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,587
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
#### Frances Fleury, as Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph Fleury, Deceased, Respondent, v. Morris Edwards, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant in a negligence action from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Trial Term, Ulster County, rendered upon the verdict of a jury and from an order of said court which denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict. No evidence of any negligence on the part of defendant is to be found in this record except in the testimony of plaintiff’s intestate taken at a hearing conducted by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles pursuant to section 71 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, as then constituted, to determine whether action should be taken to suspend or revoke the operator’s license or certificate of registration of any of the persons concerned in the accident of October 26, 1955 upon which this action is predicated and as a result of which plaintiff’s intestate sustained personal injuries which resulted in his death approximately 17 months later. The trial court held decedent’s previous testimony admissible as taken “ during the hearing upon the merits of a special proceeding”. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 348.) Obviously, the proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles did not constitute a “ prosecution in a court of justice ” so as to fall within the statutory definition of either an action or special proceeding (Civ. Prae. Act, §§ 4, 5) and for that reason decedent’s previous testimony was, in our view, improperly received. Respondent relies on *Rothman*v. *City of New York*(273 App. Div. 780) which held that an examination before the Comptroller, pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York, “was properly received in evidence where the claimant died before the trial of his action”; but the several authorities cited in support of this conclusion clearly relied upon the common-law rule as it existed prior to the enactment of section 348 and, in fact, the case of *Bosehi*v. *City of New York*(187 Mise. 875, 877), thus cited in *Rothman,*expressly held section 348 inapplicable to the section of the Administrative Code involved in both eases. Whether or not the common-law rule in some part and in some respects survives (cf. *Shorn)*v. *New York El. R. R. Co.,*187 N. Y. 186, 193-194; *Matter of White,*2 N Y 2d 309, 315 [dissenting opinion]), it cannot authorize the reception of evidence in clear contravention of the statute as respects the *589essential requirement of a prior “ hearing upon the merits of a special proceeding”. Judgment and order reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
THREE-FIVE SYSTEMS, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                                  (UNAUDITED)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED       SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                              JUNE 30,                JUNE 30,
                                       ---------------------   ---------------------
                                         1998        1997        1998        1997
                                       ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
<S>                                    <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>      
Common shares outstanding beginning 
  of period                            7,907,123   7,762,129   7,905,523   7,757,329

Effect of Weighting Shares:
  Employee stock options exercised         8,487      92,856       5,580      50,018
  Issue of treasury stock                  2,004          --       2,004          --
                                      ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------

Basic                                  7,917,614   7,854,985   7,913,107   7,807,347
                                      ==========  ==========  ==========  ==========

Common shares outstanding beginning
  of period                            7,907,123   7,762,129   7,905,523   7,757,329

Effect of Weighting Shares:
  Employee stock options exercised         8,487      92,856       5,580      50,018
  Employee stock options outstanding     210,369     215,623     228,200     255,915
  Issue of treasury stock                  2,004          --       2,004          --
                                      ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------

Diluted                                8,127,983   8,070,608   8,141,307   8,063,262
                                      ==========  ==========  ==========  ==========

Net income                            $1,123,000  $1,028,000  $2,118,000  $1,829,000
                                      ==========  ==========  ==========  ==========

NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE:

Basic                                 $     0.14  $     0.13  $     0.27  $     0.23
                                      ==========  ==========  ==========  ==========
Diluted                               $     0.14  $     0.13  $     0.26  $     0.23
                                      ==========  ==========  ==========  ==========
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tommie L. Jones, Jr., Appellant.

[832 NYS2d 841]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered June 25, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). Defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and the waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to Supreme Court’s suppression ruling *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; *People v Boose,*38 AD3d 1259 [2007]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Green and Fine, JJ.
#### § 552.211 Purpose.

This subpart establishes policies, responsibilities, and procedures for protests, pickeing, and other similar demonstrations on the Aberdeen Proving Ground installation.
# A

Adult_Education_State_Grants

Byrd_Honors_Scholarships

Class_Size_Reduction

Client_Assistance_State_Grants

Education_for_Homeless_Children_and_Youth

Eisenhower_Professional_Development_State_Grants

ESEA_Title_I__Capital_Expenses_for_Private_School_Children

ESEA_Title_I__Demonstrations_of_Comprehensive_School_Reform

ESEA_Title_I__Even_Start

ESEA_Title_I__Grants_to_Local_Educational_Agencies

ESEA_Title_I__Migrant

ESEA_Title_I__Neglected_and_Delinquent

Federal_Pell_Grants

Federal_Perkins_Loans__Capital_Contributions

Federal_Supplemental_Educational_Opportunity_Grants

Federal_Work_Study

Fund_for_the_Improvement_of_Education

Goals_2000__State_and_Local_Education_Systemic_Improvement

Grand_Total

Immigrant_Education

Impact_Aid__Basic_Support_Payments

Impact_Aid__Payments_for_Children_with_Disabilities

Independent_Living_State_Grants

Indian_Education__Grants_to_Local_Educational_Agencies

Innovative_Education_Program_Strategies_State_Grants

Leveraging_Educational_Assistance_Partnership

Protection_and_Advocacy_for_Assistive_Technology

Protection_and_Advocacy_of_Individual_Rights

Safe_and_Drug_Free_Schools_State_Grants

Special_Education__Grants_for_Infants_and_Families

Special_Education__Grants_to_States

Special_Education__Preschool_Grants

State_Grants_for_Incarcerated_Youth_Offenders

Supported_Employment_State_Grants

Technology_Literacy_Challenge_Fund

Vocational_Education__Tech_Prep_Education

Vocational_Education_State_Grants

Vocational_Rehabilitation_State_Grants

Impact_Aid__Construction

Impact_Aid__Payments for Federal Property
§ 989.21 Record of decision (ROD). ( a ) The proponent and the EPF prepare a draft ROD, formally staff it through the MAJCOM EPC, to HQ USAF/A7CI for verification of adequacy, and forwards it to either SAF/IEI or SAF/AQR, as the case may be, for approval and designation of the signator. A ROD (40 CFR 1505.2) is a concise public document stating what an agency's decision is on a specific action. The ROD may be integrated into any other document required to implement the agency's decision. A decision on a course of action may not be made until the later of the following dates: ( 1 ) 90 days after publication of the DEIS; or
( 2 ) 30 days after publication of the NOA of the Final EIS in the Federal Register.
( b ) The Air Force must announce the ROD to the affected public as specified in § 989.24, except for classified portions. The ROD should be concise and should explain the conclusion, the reason for the selection, and the alternatives considered. The ROD must identify the course of action, whether it is the proposed action or an alternative, that is considered environmentally preferable regardless of whether it is the alternative selected for implementation. The ROD should summarize all the major factors the agency weighed in making its decision, including essential considerations of national policy.
( c ) The ROD must state whether the selected alternative employs all practicable means to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts and, if not, explain why not.
[64 FR 38129, July 15, 1999, as amended at 66 FR 16868, Mar. 28, 2001; 72 FR 37106, July 9, 2007; 79 FR 35287, June 20, 2014]
#### § 761.16 Notice of action.

All applicants will be kept advised of action being taken relative to the processing of applications. Individuals whose applications cannot be processed promptly (usually within ten working days) or whose applications must be forwarded to another office for processing will be notified of the anticipated delay and advised of the approximate time when action may be expected to be taken. Under no circumstances will a notice of disapproval include a statement of the reason therefor. Copies of all notices will be distributed to commands and Entry Control Commanders concerned. Copies of all notices of disapproval will be mailed to the Chief of Naval Operations concurrently with the mailing to the applicant.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Michael Kane.

Motion for an order reversing judgment of conviction and for a new trial denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Betty Brooks, Individually and on Behalf of Her Three Infant Children, Petitioner, v Barbara Blum, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the acting State commissioner, dated October 28, 1977, and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency terminating petitioner’s grant of aid to dependent children. Determination confirmed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding dismissed on the merits. No opinion. Latharn, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### TIRRILL, Respondent, v. SNIFFEN et al., Defendants (LIVINGSTON, Appellant).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 16, 1903.)

Action by Oakes Tirrill against Edward D. Sniffen and others; James Duane Livingston, appellant.

No opinion: Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### Russell Carter, Respondent, v. Johnson Publishing Co., Inc., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts and a new trial ordered, unless the plaintff-respondcnt shall stipulate to accept the sum of $7,500, in which event the judgment as modified is affirmed, without costs. In this action in libel the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff-respondent and against defendant-appellant in the sum of $52,500, consisting of $22,500 compensatory damages and $30,000 punitive damages. The court, on motion of defendant, entered an order reducing damages to $7,500, compensatory, and $12,500 punitive. In our view, the sum even as reduced is excessive. Although this was libel per se, on this record the compensatory damages do not exceed $2,500 and the punitive damages $5,000. Settle order on notice. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
EXHIBIT 13.3




CONSENT OF EXPERT





I have reviewed the Annual Report of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, which includes information derived from my technical reports on the Property in the Durango Mining District of Mexico dated March 12, 2012 entitled "Tailings Retreatment Process Option Update", and I concur that the information as set forth is an accurate summary of my reports. I further consent to the use in this Form 20-F of the reference to myself as an expert in the Annual Report.





Date: May 11, 2012
/s/ Hassan GhaffariHassan Ghaffari, P.Eng.