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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000015511
<NAME> The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              95
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      677<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                        71<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                        244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,313<F1>
<PP&E>                                          25,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,681<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,131<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,788
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,681<F1>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,936
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,939
<INCOME-TAX>                                       733
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,206
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,206
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Restatement reflected herein is the result of reclassifications to prior
periods' financial statements to conform to the current period presentation.
</FN>


</TABLE>
1 Small Processing for PMN Chemical
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Uran Mining Corp. et al., Appellants.

Motion to dismiss appeal or, in alternative, to argue appeal at November 1960 Term, denied, and case set down for argument on January 5, 1961. Motion of Jordan E. Pappas to intervene in appeal denied.
#### 1.104 Applicability.

The FAR applies to all acquisitions as defined in part 2 of the FAR, except where expressly excluded.

[48 FR 42103, Sept. 19, 1983. Redesignated at 60 FR 34733, July 3, 1995]
### §§903a, 903b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 903a and 903b transferred to sections 1731 and 1732, respectively, of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.
Second Department,

October, 1963

(October 2, 1963)

#### In the Matter of the Appointment of David R. Siegel, Esq., as a Member of Character Committees, Second, Tenth and Eleventh Judicial Districts.

Pursuant to the provisions of law (N. Y. Const., art. VI, § 4; Judiciary Law, § 90; CPLR, rule 9401), David R. Siegel, Esq., a practicing lawyer, residing in the County of Nassau, is hereby appointed as a member of the Committees on Character and Fitness for the Second, Tenth and Eleventh Judicial Districts (in .place of James J. McDonough, Esq., resigned), to investigate the character and fitness of applicants in said judicial districts for admission to practice as attorneys and counselors at law in the courts of this State; such appointment to take effect October 17, 1963. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 1834.203 Solicitation provisions and contract clause.

The FAR EVMS solicitation provisions and contract clause are not used in NASA contracts. See 1834.203-70 for the NASA EVMS solicitation provision and contract clause.
<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>                                           5,791
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                       249
<INVENTORY>                                     17,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,669
<PP&E>                                          76,275
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,753
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,360
<BONDS>                                         20,033
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        442
<COMMON>                                         1,026
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,069
<SALES>                                         39,643
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,643
<CGS>                                           33,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (666)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (333)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (120)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (213)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (213)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)


</TABLE>
#### Mario Di Francesco et al., Doing Business as Copartners under the Name of Mario’s Contracting Co., Respondents, v. Hyman Brand, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Greta Brand, Deceased, Appellant.

In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 17, 1964, granting conditionally his motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution and to discharge the lien theretofore filed against the premises, as permitted plaintiffs to serve and file a note of issue for a subsequent term of the court. Defendant contends that his motion to dismiss should have been granted unconditionally. Order modified as follows: (1) by striking out so much of its decretal paragraph as permitted plaintiffs to notice the ease for trial at a subsequent term of the court; and (2) by adding a provision granting unconditionally the defendant’s motion, and a provision *673dismissing the complaint and discharging the mechanic’s lien and any *lis pendens*which may have been filed against the premises by reason of this action. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendant. Plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable excuse or justification for the delay of over two and one-half years in the prosecution of the action or to show, by the affidavit of one having personal knowledge of the facts, that the action has merit. Under such circumstances, defendant’s motion should have been granted unconditionally *(Sortino*v. *Fisher,*20 A D 2d 25; *Keating*v. *Smith,*20 A D 2d 141). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 157 Filed: 03/16/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1156
1403.303 Reporting suspected antitrust violations. ( a ) Reports on suspected violations of antitrust laws as required by FAR 3.303 shall be prepared by the CO, reviewed by the SOL, and submitted by the HCA directly to the Attorney General, Department of Justice. A copy of this submission must also be sent to the Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
( b ) Depending on the nature of the suspected violation or the disposition of the matter, the HCA may recommend debarment or suspension in accordance with FAR 9.406-2(a)(2) or 9.407-2(a)(2) and subpart 1409.4.
#### In the Matter of Juliana Opperman. Juliana Opperman, Appellant, v. Manhattan State Hospital, Respondent.

Final order entered May 2, 1962, recertifying appellant’s son to Manhattan State Hospital as a mentally ill person, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without prejudice to a proceeding under section 87 of the Mental Hygiene Law. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
To analyze the year-to-year change in income of borrowers in income driven repayment plans, the Department queried NSLDS data for AGI in 2010-2014 for students with ED-held loans currently in IDR plans.  The vast majority of these students did not have income information for 2010, 2011, or 2014, so we focused on the AGIs for 2012 and 2013 for one year of change.  As we do not know if a zero in the data represents a true zero income or unavailable data, we limited the analysis to 183,871 borrowers who had non-zero incomes reported for both 2012 and 2013 (out of 315,631 borrowers in the data set).  Even with this limitation and the exclusion of some possible true zeros, the data indicates a substantial percentage of students with significant changes in income, as seen in the table below.  Please let us know if you have any questions.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 836 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 836

 To amend the Federal Credit Union Act to exclude a loan secured by a 
  non-owner occupied 1- to 4-family dwelling from the definition of a 
             member business loan, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                April 5 (legislative day, April 4), 2017

  Mr. Wyden (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Markey) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
            Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Credit Union Act to exclude a loan secured by a 
  non-owner occupied 1- to 4-family dwelling from the definition of a 
             member business loan, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Credit Union Residential Loan Parity 
Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF A NON-OWNER OCCUPIED 1- TO 4-FAMILY DWELLING.

    (a) Removal From Member Business Loan Limitation.--Section 
107A(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 
1757a(c)(1)(B)(i)) is amended by striking ``that is the primary 
residence of a member''.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act or the amendment 
made by this Act shall preclude the National Credit Union 
Administration from treating an extension of credit that is fully 
secured by a lien on a 1- to 4-family dwelling that is not the primary 
residence of a member as a member business loan for purposes other than 
the member business loan limitation requirements under section 107A of 
the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1757a).
                                 <all>
```
ENNIS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
FORM 10Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2008
  EXHIBIT 32.1
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
May 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report.
 /s/ Keith S. WaltersKeith S. WaltersChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
Date:  June 30, 2008 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.
 40
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.47

                              SCHEDULE OF TERMS OF
                       MANAGEMENT STOCKHOLDER'S AGREEMENT
                                       AND
                     NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT(1)
                           EXECUTED BY JAMES A. DEMME

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    PURCHASE               SHARES               TIME              PERFORMANCE
            NAME                      DATE               PURCHASED             OPTIONS              OPTIONS
            ----                      ----               ---------             -------              -------
       <S>                          <C>                  <C>                   <C>                <C>       
       JAMES A. DEMME               9/19/97              200,000(2)            125,000(3)         125,000(3)
</TABLE>

 (1) MR. DEMME EXECUTED A MANAGEMENT STOCKHOLDER'S AGREEMENT AND A NON-QUALIFIED
     STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM OF THE MANAGEMENT
     STOCKHOLDER'S AGREEMENT ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 10.39 AND THE NON-QUALIFIED
     STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 10.40 TO THE COMPANY'S REPORT ON
     FORM 10-Q DATED OCTOBER 26, 1996.

 (2) MR. DEMME PURCHASED 200,000 SHARES OF THE COMPANY'S COMMON STOCK AT A PRICE
     OF $5.00 PER SHARE, RESULTING IN AN AGGREGATE PURCHASE PRICE OF $1,000,000.
     MR. DEMME PAID $625,355 FOR THE SHARES ACQUIRED BY HIM IN CASH AND OBTAINED
     A LOAN FROM THE COMPANY IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $374,645. THE LOAN IS
     SECURED BY ALL OF THE SHARES PURCHASED BY MR. DEMME.

 (3) THE EXERCISE PRICE FOR THE STOCK OPTIONS GRANTED TO MR. DEMME IS $12.00 PER
     SHARE.
#### Cornelius B. Chapman et al., as Copartners, v. Frances M. Purdy.

. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before January 31, 1961, with notice of argument for the March 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
No. 8324.

#### Drake et al. *v.*The State of Ohio.

(Decided November 24, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Union county.

*Mr. W. T. Hoopes; Mr. Geo. B. Olcey*and *Mr. Edw. L. Hyneman,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. J. M. Sheets,*attorney general, and *Mr. J. L. Hameron,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Siiauck, Price and ■Crew, JJ., concur.
#### Sylvia Stryker, Respondent, v Richard A. Stryker, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the defendant appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (as corrected), dated April 11, 1977, which, *inter alia,*awarded child support and alimony in the total amount of $110 per week. Order modified, on the facts, by reducing the award for alimony and child support to $85 per week. As so modified,, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion the award was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THIRD
QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000 SYNTHETIC BLOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          39,060
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,440
<PP&E>                                         310,445
<DEPRECIATION>                                 271,205
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 379,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          547,855
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       704,411
<OTHER-SE>                                   (910,126)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   379,299
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,339
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               596,097
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,487
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (580,245)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (580,245)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   ($0.009)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 ($0.009)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                  CERTIFICATION OF 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 the accompanying Form 10-Q (the "Report") of Jo-Ann Stores
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ending May 3, 2003, I, Brian P. Carney,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 11, 2003



                            /s/ Brian P. Carney
                            ---------------------------
                            Brian P. Carney,
                            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                    Page 24
Docket No. FAA-2015-3990 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-225-AD

. Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 12/10/14

Regional Airline Association 12/10/14

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 12/10/14

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 12/10/14
#### 13.303-8 Optional clause.

The clause at 52.213-4, Terms and Conditions—Simplified Acquisitions (Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services), may be used in BPAs established under this section.

[62 FR 64917, Dec. 9, 1997, as amended at 86 FR 61025, Nov. 4, 2021]
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R OB E R T WAYN E AH N, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. B E N JA M IN G R IE G O , i ncorrec t l y nam ed a s B e n G r e g io ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 16601 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 1 6 7 2 - P GR ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona P aul G . R os e nbl a tt , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 26, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an d G O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R ob ertW ay ne A hn , an H aw ai i st at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s s um m a ry j udgm e ntf orde f e nda nt s i n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng tha tpr i s on of

f i c i a l s a c t e d w i th de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e t o hi s s a f

e tyi n vi ol a t i on of 

# FI LED JU L 12 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 16601 2 the E i gh th A m endm ent . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew d e n o v o . T

oguc hiv . Chung , 3 9 1 F. 3 d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton A hn ’ s c l ai m that defe nd ant s w er e del i bera t el y i nd i ff er entt o h i s s af

ety, because A hn fa i l ed t o rai se a genu i ne di sput e of m at er i al fa ctas t o w hether defe nd ant s knew of and d i sr egar ded a n e x c e s s iv e r is kto h is s a f e ty . Se e Farm e rv . B r e nnan , 511 U . S . 825, 837 ( 1994) ( “ apr i s on of

f i c i a l c a nnotbe f

ound l i abl e [ f

orde l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e ] . . . unl e s s the o f f i c i a l k n o ws o f

a n d d i s r e g a r d s a n e x c e s s i v e r i s kt o i n ma t e h e a l th o rs a f e ty ” ) . To th e ex t en tth atA h n al l eg es th atd efen d an tP o eh l m an u sed ex cessi v e fo rce ag ai n st h im , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r a n te d s u m m a ryju d g m e n t b e c au s e A h n f a ile d to ra i se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i al fa ctas t o w hether the al l eged force w as appl i ed m a lic io u s lyo rs a d is tic a llyto c au s e h a rm . Se e H uds on v . McMi l l i an , 5 0 3 U .S . 1 , 7 (199 2) (e xp l ai ni ng that“ the core j ud i ci al i nq ui ryi s . . . w hether f orce w as appl i ed i n agood- f

a i th e f f ortt o m a i nt a i n orr e s t or e di s c i pl i ne , orm a l i c i ous l ya nd sa di st i ca l l y t o cause harm ”) . W e d o n o t c o n s id e ris s u e s r a is e d f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. See P ad get t v. W r i ght , 58 7 F . 3d 98 3, 98 5 n . 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( per c uri am ). AF F I RME D.