alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[ LOGO ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comerica Bank

                                                  One Detroit Center
                                                  P.O. Box 7500
                                                  Detroit, MI 48275-3265
                                                  Phone: (313) 222-5431

                                                  Robert M. Ramirez
                                                  Account Officer
                                                  U.S. Banking - Automotive
                                                  Facsimile: (313) 222-3776


October 13, 1999


Mr. W.T. ZurSchmiede, Jr.
Chairman
Federal Screw Works
2400 Buhl Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226


Dear Mr. ZurSchmiede,

Per your request dated September 3, 1999 and pursuant to Section 2.13 of the
Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement between Federal Screw Works and
Comerica Bank, the Bank has approved the one year extension for the Revolving
Credit Facility and Term Loan option. The new maturity dates for the
facilities are October 31, 2002 and October 31, 2004, respectively.
Additionally, Section 8.12 of the agreement has been amended to increase the
per annum capital expenditures limit to $14,000,000.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Best Regards,


/s/ Robert M. Ramirez
Robert M. Ramirez

cc: Wade Plaskey
#### 11.601 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Approved program* means a program determined as necessary or appropriate for priorities and allocations support to promote the national defense by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, under the authority of the Defense Production Act, the Stafford Act, and Executive Order 12919, or the Selective Service Act and related statutes and Executive Order 12742.

*Delegate Agency* means a Government agency authorized by delegation from the Department of Commerce to place priority ratings on contracts or orders needed to support approved programs.

*National defense* means programs for military and energy production or construction, military assistance to any foreign nation, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195 *et seq.*) and critical infrastructure protection and restoration. (50 U.S.C. App. § 2152).

*Rated order* means a prime contract, a subcontract, or a purchase order in support of an approved program issued in accordance with the provisions of the DPAS regulation (15 CFR part 700).

[73 FR 21784, Apr. 22, 2008]
#### Paul Salinger, as Limited Administrator of the Estate of Sophie Salinger, Deceased, Respondent, v. Eli Hollander et al., Defendants, and Bertha Hollander, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, the defendant Bertha Hollander appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered July 9, 1962, granting her motion, pursuant to section 181 of the Civil Practice Act, to dismiss the action as against her for lack of prosecution “ unless a note of issue herein is filed for the October, 1962 Term.” Order modified by striking therefrom the proviso as to the filing of the note of issue. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. For having failed to serve the complaint within 20 days (and in fact for more than one year) after defendant’s demand therefor, the plaintiff was in default (Civ. Prae. Act, § 257). No motion had been made by plaintiff to open the default although this clearly was the proper procedure *(Borreggine*v. *Di Ponzio,*10 A D 2d 811; *Parmett*v, *Concord Hotel,*9 A D 2d 767). Moreover, plaintiff failed to show either a reasonable excuse for the default or a meritorious cause of action *(Blasser*v. *Morrisania Milk*Co., 248 App. Div. 281). Hence, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to withhold the unconditional dismissal of the action. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### **CHAPTER 32—PEANUT STATISTICS**

Sec.
951.
Collection and publication; facts required; submission of report.
952.
Repealed.
953.
Reports; by whom made; penalties.
954.
Grades and standards for classification.
955.
Limitation on use of statistical information.
956.
Rules and regulations; cooperation with departments, etc.; officers and employees; expenses of administration; authorization of appropriations.
957.
Definitions.
958.
Repealed.
EIS International, Inc. and Subsidiaries               Exhibit 11

                 Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings
                  (in thousands, except for per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        Quarter Ended March 31,
                                                        1997              1996
                                                    -----------       -----------
<S>                                                <C>                <C>        
Net Loss:

Loss from continuing operations                    $    (3,522)       $  (15,242)
Loss on discontinued operations                              -              (573)
                                                   -----------        -----------
Net loss                                           $    (3,522)       $  (15,815)
                                                   ============       ===========

Net loss per share:

Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares:

     Common shares outstanding                          11,143            10,032

     Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants,
     primary computation                                     -                 -
                                                   -----------        ----------

Weighted average number of common and
common equivalent shares utilized in the primary
loss per share computation                              11,143            10,032
                                                   -----------        ----------

     Additional dilutive effect of stock options and
     warrants, fully diluted computation                     -                 -
                                                   -----------        ----------

Weighted average number of common and
common equivalent shares utilized in the fully
diluted loss per share computation                      11,143            10,032
                                                   -----------        ----------


      Primary loss per share:
     Continuing operations                         $   (0.32)         $  (1.52)
     Discontinued operations                               -             (0.06)
                                                   ---------          --------
     Primary loss per share                        $   (0.32)         $  (1.58)
                                                   =========          =========
</TABLE>
§ 757.16 Claims asserted only with OJAG approval. ( a ) *Certain Government contractors.* JAG approval is required before asserting a claim against a Federal government contractor when the contract provides that the contractor will be indemnified or held harmless by the Federal government for tort liability.
( b ) *U.S. personnel.* JAG approval is required before asserting MCRA claims directly against servicemembers, their dependents and federal employees and their dependents for injury to another person. No approval is necessary to assert claims against their insurance policies, however, except for injuries caused by servicemembers and federal employees acting “within the scope of their employment.” Intra-familial tort immunity would not preclude the Government from asserting any claims for care furnished to a tortfeasor's family members.
[72 FR 53429, Sept. 19, 2007]
No. 241.

#### Kansas City Bolt & Nut Company *v.*Kansas City Light & Power Company.

Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.

Argued March 15, 1920.

Decided March 22, 1920.

*Mr. Rees Turpin*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John H. Lucas,*with whom *Mr. Frank Hagerman*was on the brief, for defendant in, error.

*Per Curiam.*

Affirmed upon the authority of *Union Dry Goods Co.*v. *Georgia Public Service Corporation,*248 U. S. 372.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, 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.

September 16, 2015

a0909 

# Order

Clerk September 16, 2015

150919

LALE ROBERTS and JOAN ROBERTS,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 150919

COA: 316068

Houghton CC: 2012

- 015075

- NH

KATHRYN SALMI, LPC, d/b/a SALMI

CHRISTIAN COUNSELING,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2014

j udgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall

address whether a mental health professional has a duty of care to third parties who might

foreseeably be harmed by the mental health professional’s use of techniques that cause a

patient to have false memories of sexual abuse.

P ersons or groups interested in the determination of the issue presented in this case

may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
### §951. Collection and publication; facts required; submission of report

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to collect and publish statistics of raw peanuts, shelled, unshelled, and crushed, and peanut oil, in the United States, received, processed, shipped, and owned by or in the possession of warehousemen, brokers, cleaners, shellers, dealers, growers' cooperative associations, crushers, salters, manufacturers of peanut products, and owners other than the original producers of peanuts: Provided, That the Secretary may, in his discretion, omit for any period of time to collect such statistics from any or all salters of peanuts or manufacturers of peanut products who used, during the calendar year preceding that for which statistics are being collected, less than thirty thousand pounds of shelled and unshelled peanuts. Such statistics shall show the quality of peanuts in such details as to kinds—Virginias, Runners, Spanish, and imported varieties—as the Secretary shall deem necessary for the purposes of this chapter. All reports shall be submitted monthly in each year, except as otherwise prescribed by the Secretary.

(June 24, 1936, ch. 745, §1, 49 Stat. 1898; May 12, 1938, ch. 199, §1, 52 Stat. 348; Pub. L. 85–105, §1, July 17, 1957, 71 Stat. 306.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1957—Pub. L. 85–105 struck out "except those required from persons owning or operating peanut picking or threshing machines" after "All reports" in last sentence and inserted "except as otherwise prescribed by the Secretary".

1938—Act May 12, 1938, among other changes, inserted proviso.
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30376 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. HIKING DUPRE Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:04-CR-28
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Hiking Dupre, proceeding pro se, appeals his 2004 convictions and sentences for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base within 1000feet of a public playground, carrying and using a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Dupre argues that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the introduction of unfairly prejudicial evidence, such as a black shirt and a ski mask, seized from a vehicle at the time of his arrest. This ski mask and shirt United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 05-30376

2 were briefly discussed at trial but were never introduced as actual exhibits or shown to thejury. The district court correctly found that the defense opened the door to a discussion of such evidence by arguing that the police had found the gun and drugs in a nearby vehicle rather than on Dupre’s person. The defense opened the door further by questioning a police officer about apparent discrepancies between his testimony and a property receipt that listed the items seized. Finally, we note that this property receipt, which listed the ski mask and shirt, was introduced as an exhibit by the defense rather than the Government. Given these facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing brief mention ofthese items. SeeUnited Statesv. Maldonado, 472 F.3d 388, 398 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Wilson, 355 F.3d 358, 361 (5th Cir. 2003). Dupre also argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced under 21 U.S.C. § 841; he asserts that the Government failed to comply with 21 U.S.C. § 851 by not serving either himself or defense counsel with notice that the Government would seek to enhance his sentence on the basis of his prior convictions. Although a § 841 enhancement on the basis of prior convictions was extensively discussed, the statutory sentencing ranges discussed at sentencing
are the penalties applicable to his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 860 (possession with intent to distribute cocaine base within 1000 feet ofa public playground). See United States v. Chandler, 125 F.3d 892, 896 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Dupre’s sentence was not enhanced under § 841 on the basis of his prior convictions, any non-compliance with § 851 is harmless. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 52(a). AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
23(e)
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (Nos. 333-128219, 333-116477, 333-106200 and 333-106200-01,
333-132574, 333-132574-01, 333-132574-02, and 333-132574-03) of PPL Energy
Supply, LLC of our report dated February 24, 2006, except for Note 10, "Sale of
Interest in Griffith Plant" section, which is as of December 13, 2006 and Note
10, "Sale of Latin American Businesses" section, which is as of June 20, 2007,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.
 
 
 
 
 /s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
 February
28, 2008
### §1362. Right to counsel

In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge and in any appeal proceedings before the Attorney General from any such removal proceedings, the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 9, §292, 66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, §§308(d)(4)(O), 371(b)(9), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–619, 3009–645.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–208, §371(b)(9), substituted "an immigration judge" for "a special inquiry officer".

Pub. L. 104–208, §308(d)(4)(O), substituted "removal" for "exclusion or deportation" in two places.

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

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by section 308(d)(4)(O) of Pub. L. 104–208 effective, with certain transitional provisions, on the first day of the first month beginning more than 180 days after Sept. 30, 1996, see section 309 of Pub. L. 104–208, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Amendment by section 371(b)(9) of Pub. L. 104–208 effective Sept. 30, 1996, see section 371(d)(1) of Pub. L. 104–208, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          27,064<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,989
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,413
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,106
<PP&E>                                         237,922
<DEPRECIATION>                                  75,793
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,390
<BONDS>                                         77,388
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           143
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,792
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               192,225
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,639
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    264
<INCOME-TAX>                                       107
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                157
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       157
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
<FN>
<F1>Includes restricted short-term investments of $60.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# 2021 President's Budget

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 17, 2015, 10:16 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 7, 2015, 6:40 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	September 3, 2015, 3:56 PM

&"-,Regular"&10DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2021 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET&8(in thousands of dollars)	&"-,Regular"&10 2/10/2020

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&P

X0A0T

X0A1T

X0A2T

X0A3T

X0A4T

X0A5T

X0A6T
http://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.uri
```

                                                     EXHIBIT 32.2

                   Section 1350 Certification
                 By Principal Financial Officer

     I,  Craig  R.  Jones, certify that the periodic  report,  to
which  this  Statement  is  attached,  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the  Securities  and
Exchange  Act  of  1934,  and the information  contained  in  the
periodic  report  to  which this Statement  is  attached,  fairly
present,  in  all material respects, the financial condition  and
results of operations of the registrant.

     A  signed  original  of  this  written  statement  has  been
provided  to the Company and will be retained by the Company  and
furnished to the SEC upon request.

     Dated December 16, 2004

                              /s/ Craig R. Jones
                              Craig R. Jones
                              Chief Financial Officer
```
#### 1329.203 Other Federal tax exemptions.
(May 28, 1964)

#### In the Matter of James H. Madole et al., Petitioners, v. Irvin D. Davidson, as Justice of the Supreme Court, First Judicial District, et al., Respondents.

Article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition to command a Justice of the Supreme Court and the District Attorney of Bronx County to refrain from proceeding further with the trial of petitioners under an indictment charging conspiracy in violation of section 580 of the Penal Law, unanimously dismissed, and the application denied, without costs. There was jurisdiction in the Supreme Court to eliminate from consideration at the trial the language of the indictment referring to the advocacy of criminal anarchy. This in no way affected the validity of the indictment insofar as it charged conspiracy to commit other named crimes. In any event, a denial of this application will not leave petitioners without their legal remedy of appeal from any conviction after trial (see *Matter of Marra v. County Court of County of Genesee,*17 A D 2d 902). Concur—Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.