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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS ON PAGES 2 - 5 OF THE COMPANY'S
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          25,177
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,005)
<INVENTORY>                                     26,323
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,261
<PP&E>                                         407,948
<DEPRECIATION>                                  92,939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 462,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,478
<BONDS>                                        260,078
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           714
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   462,964
<SALES>                                         62,841
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,077
<CGS>                                           51,817
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,528
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,656)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,403)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,263)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,263)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (10.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            7341
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   178677
<ALLOWANCES>                                       972
<INVENTORY>                                     175575
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                379971
<PP&E>                                          771033
<DEPRECIATION>                                  429391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  998598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           202413
<BONDS>                                         431711
<COMMON>                                         83465
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      125347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    998598
<SALES>                                         628193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                628193
<CGS>                                           483362
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   533431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (153)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               26637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  68278
<INCOME-TAX>                                     23034
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              45244
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     45244
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54


</TABLE>
(October 28, 1964)

#### In the Matter of Cedric E. Redmond, Doing Business as Redmond’s Billiard Room and Smoke Shop, Petitioner, v. Caroline K. Simon, as Secretary of State, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

This is an article 78 proceeding to review a determination of the Secretary of State revoking a billiard license. Section 349 of the Penal Law captioned “ Obstructions to view prohibited” states in somewhat broad and general language that windows in a billiard room shall not be constructed so as to “ prevent a full, clear and unobstructed view of such billiard or pocket billiard room ” and *“*There shall be no interior billiard room not having a principal door or entrance and such door and all other doors entering such room shall have therein a section of clear glass sufficient to afford a clear view of such billiard room from the outside ”. The petitioner was the owner of a restaurant and billiard room in the City of Ogdensburg and after written notice of alleged violation pursuant to section 349, a hearing was held, the premises were inspected, following which it was determined that a partition had been erected on the said premises which prevented an unobstructed view of the billiard parlor from the outside and that from inside the restaurant there was not afforded a clear view of the said billiard room. Accordingly, his license was revoked. We are unable to agree with the petitioner that the statute is ambiguous but to the contrary, in our opinion, it seems sufficiently definite so as to give a clear warning of that which it seeks to prevent. The interpretation as found by the representative of the Secretary of State is a fair reading of the intent of the statute, the evidence in the record is sufficient to sustain that finding and accordingly the determination is not arbitrary or capricious. Other statutes impose similar penalties for similar violations. (Cf. *Matter of Hornblass*v. *Bruckman,*257 App. Div. 916.) Determination confirmed and petition dismissed, with $10 costs. Gibson, P. J., Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
#### City of Hartford *v.*Public Utilities Commission et al. Connecticut Citizens Action Group et al. *v.*Public Utilities Commission Hartford Consumer Activists Association et al. *v.*Public Utilities Commission et al. Office of Consumer Counsel *v.*Public Utilities Commission et al. Office of Consumer Counsel *v.*Public Utilities Commission et al.

(No. 112008)

(No. 112009)

(No. 112010)

(No. 112083)

(No. 112084)

*Peter G. Boucher,*assistant corporation counsel, for the plaintiff city of Hartford.

*Barry 8. Zitser,*for the plaintiffs Connecticut Citizens Action Group et al. and Hartford Consumer Activists Association et al.

*David Silverstone,*consumer counsel, for the plaintiff office of Consumer Counsel.

The plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is denied.

*687Submitted January 15

decided January 27, 1975

*Palmer S. McGee, Jr.,*and *Robert M. Stephan,*for the defendants Hartford Electric Light Company and Connecticut Light and Power Company.

*Robert S. Golden, Jr.,*assistant attorney general, and *Richard L. Barger,*assistant attorney general, for the named defendant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EARTHCOMBER, LLC,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZIPREALTY, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12-cv-00395

Hon. John F. Grady

Magistrate Judge Kim

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff Earthcomber, LLC, by its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby voluntarily dismisses this action, 

without prejudice, against Defendant ZipRealty, Inc.

Dated: March 12, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

EARTHCOMBER, LLC

By: ______________________

 One of its Attorneys

Joseph J. Siprut 

jsiprut@siprut.com

Aleksandra M. S. Vold 

avold@siprut.com

SIPRUT PC

122 South Michigan Avenue

Suite 1850

Chicago, Illinois 60603

312.588.1440

Fax: 312.427.1850

4819-6256-1551, v. 1

Case: 1:12-cv-00395 Document #: 8 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:59
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed this 12th day of March, 2012, via 

the electronic filing system of the Northern District of Illinois, which will automatically serve all 

counsel of record.

_________________________

Joseph J. Siprut

Case: 1:12-cv-00395 Document #: 8 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:60
Case: 1:12-cv-00821 Document #: 14 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:64
Case: 1:12-cv-00821 Document #: 14 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:65
Case: 1:12-cv-00821 Document #: 14 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:66
1209.507-270 Contract clauses. ( a ) In accordance with FAR 9.507-2, the contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 1252.209-70, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, as applicable, in solicitations and contracts.
( b ) In accordance with FAR 9.507-2, the contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 1252.209-71, Limitation of Future Contracting, as applicable, in solicitations and contracts.
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________ Consolidated Case Nos. 01-60543, 01-60544, 01-60545, 01-60546, 01-60547, 01-60548, 01-60549, 01-60550, 01-60551, 01-60552, 01-60553, 01-60554, 01-60555, 01-60556

__________________________
BANK ONE, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
WILLIE QUINN, JAMES BIRDSONG, ANNIE WHEELER, ROBERT JACKSON, PERCY CATCHINGS, RI CKY DILLON, QUAKO CURTIS, MARGARETTA LOFTON, ELOISE TILLIS, JAMES TILLIS, DAIRY STRICKLAND, TRENTICE WILSON, WILLIE MCRUNNELS, GERTRUDE MILLER, AND RUBY HARRINGTON Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:01-CV-65-BN)

___________________________________________________ July 18, 2002 Before WIENER, E. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM 1 : Appellants challenge the district court’s rulings granting
Bank One’s motions to compel arbitration and denying their motions for abstention and dismissal, discovery, and a jury trial. These cases are indistinguishable from those that we reviewed and ruled2 288 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2002).

3 No. 01-60051 (5th Cir. April 5, 2002) (unpublished).

4 125 F.Supp.2d 819 (S.D. Miss. 2001).
2 on in the related cases of B ank One, N.A. v. Boyd 2 and Bank One , N.A. v. Lake

. 3 For essentially the same reasons that are set forth in our opinion in Boyd and in the district court’s opinion in Bank One, N.A. v. Coates , 4 the judgments of the district court in these cases are, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
Amend 2 to Stock Purchase Agreement



 Exhibit 10.12 
 Amendment No. 2 to Reptron Electronics, Inc. Stock Option Plan 
 Effective as of
October 28, 2005, the Board of Directors amended Section 1.8 of the Reptron Electronics, Inc. Stock Option Plan to read as follows: 
 1.8 Compensation Committee. “Compensation Committee” means the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Reptron Electronics, Inc., as such Committee shall be constituted from time to time by
the Board of Directors.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 682 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 682

To amend title 31, United States Code, to require the Secretary of the 
  Treasury to provide for the purchase of paper United States savings 
                        bonds with tax refunds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2017

  Mrs. Murray (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. King, and Ms. Klobuchar) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 31, United States Code, to require the Secretary of the 
  Treasury to provide for the purchase of paper United States savings 
                        bonds with tax refunds.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Save Access to a Valuable Investment 
Needed to Generate Savings Act of 2017'' or the ``SAVINGS Act''.

SEC. 2. PURCHASE PAPER UNITED STATES SAVINGS BONDS WITH TAX REFUND.

    Section 3106 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(d) The Secretary shall--
            ``(1) provide an option on the individual return of tax 
        under subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to use a 
        portion or all of a refund of overpayment of such tax to 
        purchase United States savings bonds in paper form for the 
        taxpayer or any individual designated by the taxpayer; or
            ``(2) provide an option on such return of tax that--
                    ``(A) allows for the gifting of United States 
                savings bonds to any individual designated by the 
                taxpayer; and
                    ``(B) serves the unbanked (within the meaning of 
                section 49 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
                U.S.C. 1831z)) and individuals who lack access to the 
                Internet.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 18(b)

| | PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
Two Commerce Square, Suite 1700
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA  19103-7042
Telephone (267) 330 3000
Facsimile (267) 330 3300
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 4, 2002

Board of Managers
PPL Energy Supply, LLC
Two North Ninth Street
Allentown, PA 18101-1179

Dear Managers:

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of PPL Energy Supply, LLC, includedin the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001and issued our report thereon datedFebruary 4, 2002.  Note 12to the financial statements describes a change in accounting principle related to the method of amortization of unrecognized gains and losses in the annual pension expense/income determined under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 87, "Employers' Accounting for Pensions" ("SFAS 87").  Under the prior method, unrecognized gains and losses in excess of ten percent were amortized on a straight line basis over the estimated average future service period of plan participants.  Under the current method, a second corridor will be utilized for unrecognized gains and losses in excess of thirty percent of the plan's projected benefit obligation. Unrecognized gains and losses on the second corridor will be amortized on a straight-line method over a period equal to one-half of the average future service period of the active plan participants who are expected to receive plan benefits.  It should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another for the amortization of unrecognized gains or losses calculated in the annual pension expense/income determined under SFAS 87has not been addressed in any authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we have relied on management's determination that this change in accounting principle is preferable.  Based on our reading of management's stated reasons and justification for this change in accounting principle in the Form 10-K, and our discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the change, we concur with management that such change represents, in the Company's circumstances, the adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity
with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20.

Very truly yours,

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### VAN VORST, Respondent, v. REED, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 16, 1903.)

Action by Seymour Van Vorst against Theodore F. Reed.

No opinion. Motion denied, upon payment of $10 costs, and, upon payment of an additional $10, leave given to apply to the court below to open default.
### §608f. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–106, §9, Aug. 4, 1965, 79 Stat. 432

Section, act May 12, 1933, ch. 25, title I, §8f, formerly §8(5), 48 Stat. 34; renumbered §8f and amended Aug. 24, 1935, ch. 641, §7, 49 Stat. 762; Oct. 8, 1940, ch. 759, 54 Stat. 1019, prohibited, except in specified cases, the shipment of grain from public grain warehouses to other warehouse without cancellation of warehouse receipts to avoid conflict with other laws regulating warehousemen.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9 -**  **6 70**  **0**

JOHN F. ALLEN , P etitioner

– Appell ant ,
v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

– Appell ee .

Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the Eastern Di strict of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T. S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1 :0 8

- c v - 0 1 3 43

- T SE

- TCB )

Submitted : August 31, 2010 Decided: September 21, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss e d by un published per curiam opinion
.
John F. Allen, Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John F. Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

c onstitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief o n the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional cl aims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003) . When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedur al ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 5 2 9 U.S. at 4 84

- 85
. Allen’s challenge to the district court’s timeliness ruling hinges on facts and an argument he did not present to th e district court. W e generally do not consider new arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Sawyer v. Whitley , 505 U.S. 333, 338

- 39 (1992); Murray v. Carrier , 477 U.S. 478, 495

- 96 (1986); Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).3 “Exceptions to this general rule are made only in very limited circumstances, such as where refusal to consider the newly

raised issue would be plain error or would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Id. Such is not the case here. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Allen has not made the showing required for issuance of a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Page 1 of 3 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970

- 3392 Fax (571) 970

- 3271

www.vinylinfo.org www.vinylindesign.com September 24, 2010

Ms. Jodi Howard U.S. EPA

- Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Program Divisions Coatings and Chemicals Group Mail Code: E143

- 01 Research T riangle Park, NC 27711

RE: PVC MACT Rulemaking: Seasonal Production of PVC Resin Manufacturing

Dear Ms. Howard,

During the past year, the Vinyl Institute (VI) and its members, and other stakeholders in the PVC industry have expressed concerns to EPA about the seasonal bias in the resin sampling

, stack testing , and other emissions data submitted in response to the Agency’s Section 114 Request in response to the above

- referenced rulemaking. To further clarify these concerns, the VI has pre pared a data table and chart, which depict

a 3

- 1/2 year history of monthly production volumes and identifies the period of Section 114 testing over that period.

As the chart and table below indicate, testing and sampling conducted in response to the Agen cy’s 114 Request occurred during months when industry production rates and volumes ranged from 25 to 34% below the highest production month (May, 2007) of the past 3 years. Obviously the economic downturn contributed heavily to the recent 3 year period of lower production rates that the PVC industry has experienced. Accordingly, VI submits that in utilizing the data submitted in to the Section 114 Request response , EPA
should consider this seasonal and economic variability in evaluating the PVC industry’s rate of production, and in developing the PVC MACT rule

.Page 2 of 3 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970

- 3392 Fax (571) 970

- 3271

www.vinylinfo.org www.vinylindesign.com The data set represents U.S. producers an d includes one resin facility located in Canada that could not practically be separated out from the reporting results. The
volume from the Canadian plant should be considered as an insignificant amount of the
total monthly production figures and is believed to track U.S. trends closely.

Please do n ot hesitate to contact me if you have any questions on this information, if you require additional information, or if you need to discuss this further.Page 3 of 3 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970

- 3392 Fax (571) 970

- 3271

www.vinylinfo.org www.vinylindesign.com Sincerely,

Richard P. Krock Technical Director

e

- mail: rkrock@vinylinfo.org phone: 571

- 970

- 3392 cell: 571

- 216

- 4474