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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      71,810,707
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,564,402
<ALLOWANCES>                                   764,118
<INVENTORY>                                 29,698,137
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           135,780,420
<PP&E>                                       7,718,605
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,606,498
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             172,578,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,617,006
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    976,755
<COMMON>                                       138,631
<OTHER-SE>                                 154,845,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               155,961,109
<SALES>                                    136,636,124
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           136,636,124
<CGS>                                       95,785,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               95,785,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            29,073,523
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,066,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,491,716
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,892,992
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,598,724
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,598,724
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .73
        

</TABLE>
The Honorable Rob Portman 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Portman: 

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON DC 20590 

July 17, 2012 

Thank you for your letter supporting the proposal submitted by the Youngstown-Warren 

Regional Airport for a grant under the U.S. Department of Transportation's Small Community 

Air Service Development Program. 

The Small Community Air Service Development Program was established to help smaller 

communities address air service deficiencies, particularly issues related to high airfares or 

insufficient service. Under the statute, the Department may make a maximum of 40 grant 

awards each year, although no more than 4 awards may be to communities in the same State. 

In order to provide communities with latitude in developing solutions to their air service 

deficiencies, the statute provides flexibility in the types of projects that can be funded. 

On May 15, the Department issued an order requesting that communities interested in receiving a 

grant this year file their applications by June 11. As these grant requests are pending before the 

Department, I cannot comment on the merits of any particular proposal. I assure you that the 

Department will give full and fair consideration to all proposals that have been properly filed. 

As is our normal practice, I am placing o of your letter and this response in Docket 

DOT-OST-2012-0069 as a contact o ide e record of this matter. I appr your interest in 

this program. 
. . 

' 

ROB PORTMAN 

(I! I() ,\P,VED .~EIWlCES 

.:uOGET 

E~I[Htj'( AND United .States ~enatc · :-.;,\ TUAAt. RESOURCES 

W,\SHINliTGN. DC 20510 

1-iO\-IE~NO SECURITY 

ANO GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

400 7th Street, S. W., Room 640 J 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood, 

June 8, 2012 

I write to bring to your attention the competitive grant application submitted by the YoungstownWarren Regional-Airport (Airport) for funding in the Small Community Air Service 

Dev~lopment·Program .. 

f understand th~t the Airport seeks funding to offer air services at lower costs to the eastern' Ohio 

community. The Aii;;ort is a component of the community's economic development strategy 

and air service would help to attract and retain employers to the region. With the assistance of 

this grant, the Airport would establish regular commercial air service in the YoungstownWarren-Sharon metropolitan area. 

Please give all due consideration to this request. If there are any questions, please contact my 

grant coordinator, Linda Greenwood, at { 419) 259-3895. Thank you . 

. .... ·. ·. _·.; 

Sincerely, 

7Zof7fl~~ Rob Portman 

United States Senator 

. ·· ..
M. P. No. 74-268.

#### Miriam Hospital *v.*Rhode Island Workers’ Association *et al.*

*Levy, Goodman, Semenoff & Gorin, Edward F. Burke,*for plaintiff-respondent. *Donald R. Coblentz, Kenneth F. MacIver, Jr., Rhode Island Legal Services, Inc.,*for defendants-petitioners.

Petition for alternate writ of certiorari or mandamus is denied as moot.

Joslin, J. did not participate.
#### In the Matter of James D. McFarland, Appellant, v Rosellen S. McFarland, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County, entered September 2, 1977. The parties were married on June 27, 1953 and during the marriage had six children, two of whom are now emancipated. After a lengthy separation, appellant husband pursuant to the parties’ stipulation obtained a default judgment of divorce predicated upon respondent’s cruel and inhuman treatment. The stipulation and judgment also provided for the referral of the support issue to the Family Court. Upon this appeal, appellant challenges that part of the Family Court’s order which directed him to (1) meet the medical, dental and hospital bills of the four children; (2) pay $25 per week alimony to respondent upon the emancipation of the oldest minor child; (3) pay $25 per week for each minor child by payroll deduction; (4) pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance and repairs on the marital home; (5) pay $400 for respondent’s counsel fees; and which (6) awarded exclusive possession of the marital home to respondent. We conclude that a remittal is necessary. Appellant was granted a divorce based upon respondent’s cruelty. He concedes that the stipulation referring the issue of support to the Family Court constituted a waiver of section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law. The stipulation, however, refers only to the question of "support”; there is no mention in it authorizing the Family Court to grant respondent exclusive possession of the marital home, title to which was solely in appellant’s name, "Absent such express authorization, the respondent is not entitled to exclusive possession of the marital residence” *(Schwartzman v Schwartzman,*62 AD2d 988, 989). A remittal is, therefore, necessary so that Family Court can reconsider its award (see *Schwartzman v Schwartzman, supra,*p 989). Order reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Chemung County, without costs, for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements set forth in Form 10-K report of the
Registrant for 1995.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000318819
<NAME> ROBERT D. SIEVERS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,884,681
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     77,903
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         164,370
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       243,732
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  32,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,403,141
<COMMON>                                        42,392
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      112,095
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            664,452
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 818,939
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           82,326
<PREFERRED>                                     17,961
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,384,649
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             148,639
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   44,321
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 906,306
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,403,141
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      802,820
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            57,646
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     558,547
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     616,193
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        186,627
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              22,476
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 209,103
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       117,042
<NET-INCOME>                                    92,061
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      3,984
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   88,077
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        42,500
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      112,073
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         179,096
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                       1,023,443
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,157,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                   132,500
<INVENTORY>                                    881,418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,566,042
<PP&E>                                       4,643,156
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,863,108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,759,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,811,908
<BONDS>                                      2,174,532
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,344
<OTHER-SE>                                     607,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,759,903
<SALES>                                      8,135,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,135,420
<CGS>                                        4,880,691
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,995,503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                73,883
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             399,239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,974)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,399
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (73,373)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (73,373)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            2743
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   177500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                191642
<PP&E>                                           12470
<DEPRECIATION>                                   10492
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4384484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4033560
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38020
<OTHER-SE>                                      312904
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4384484
<SALES>                                          41912
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                243081
<CGS>                                             5689
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                153025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  86981
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              86981
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     86981
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .002
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .002
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) 12 CR 172-2

)

Chadia Abuied, )

Defendant )

AGREED MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF BOND TO ALLOW TRAVEL TO WISCONSIN

Counsel for Chadia Abueid, on supervised release, hereby files his agreed motion to 

Allow her to travel to Wisconsin, the Dells, between July 17 and July 20, 2017 and in support 

thereof states:

1. Defendant will be travelling with her sister and mother visiting from Palestine and her 

young son;

2. That Ms. Abueid has had this court’s permission to travel to Brazil, Florida and Palestine 

on previous occasions, even before her plea;

3. That the government has no objection to this planned travel, per Sunil. Harjani, 

Assistant United States Attorney;

4. That the government has filed no alleged violations of probation against defendant;

Case: 1:12-cr-00172 Document #: 149 Filed: 07/13/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:432
5. Counsel is informed that the probation department, per Jason Crawford, objects to the 

travel on the ground that the defendant owes unpaid restitution and therefore should 

not be allowed what the officer calls “leisure travel;”

6. That counsel originally “misfiled” this request at an earlier date and that if the court 

wishes to hear more information, Mr. Sunil Harjani, AUSA and undersigned counsel are 

available tomorrow morning at the court’s convenience;

7. That counsel for Abueid explained to Assistant United States Attorney Harjani the 

objection of probation and he nonetheless has no objection in allowing Ms. Abueid 

travelling to the Dells next week.

Wherefore, defendant prays that she be permitted to travel to Wisconsin, the Dells, from July 

17 to July 20, 2017, with the usual conditions that she inform probation of her address and 

itinerary. 

Respectfully Submitted,

s/Robert G. Clarke, Attorney

Robert G. Clarke, Attorney

Attorney for Chadia Abueid

123 W. Madison, Suite 1500

Chicago,Ill. 60602

Case: 1:12-cr-00172 Document #: 149 Filed: 07/13/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:433
Case: 1:12-cr-00172 Document #: 149 Filed: 07/13/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:434
#### In the Matter of Feingold Electric Inc., Respondent, v. Kinsor Construction Corp. et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to section 76 of the Lien Law to vacate respondent’s demand for an examination of the books and records of the appellants as trustees, appellants move to stay the order denying their application and directing the examination to proceed. Motion granted on condition that, within 20 days after entry of the order hereon, appellants shall file and serve an undertaking for $20,000, with corporate surety, to make good for any loss, waste, diversion or conversion of the assets of the trusts existing under article 3-A (§§ 70-79) of the Lien Law, with respect to which the appellants are trustees. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### 17.800 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for conducting reverse auctions and utilizing reverse auction service providers.
207.172 Human research. Any DoD component sponsoring research involving human subjects— ( a ) Is responsible for oversight of compliance with 32 CFR Part 219, Protection of Human Subjects; and
( b ) Must have a Human Research Protection Official, as defined in the clause at 252.235-7004, Protection of Human Subjects, and identified in the DoD component's Human Research Protection Management Plan. This official is responsible for the oversight and execution of the requirements of the clause at 252.235-7004 and shall be identified in acquisition planning.
[74 FR 37648, July 29, 2009]
(December 23, 1964)

#### Ippolito-Lutz, Inc., Respondent, v. Cohoes Housing Authority, Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal by defendant from an order which denied its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, the general contractor for certain building construction, sues to recover the final payment, retained pending completion of the work, and seeks damages, also, for the value of extra work and for delay allegedly caused by the - defendant. Upon this appeal, defendant’s argument is concentrated upon the claim for damages due to delay. Its defense relies principally upon the clause of the contract providing: “No payment of compensation of any kind shall be made to the Contractor for damages because of hindrance or delay from any cause in the progress of the work, whether such hindrances or delays be avoidable or unavoidable.” The affidavit in opposition to the motion sets forth plaintiff’s factual averments as to defendant’s hindrances and delays, its indecision and its refusals, over long periods, to perform necessary acts in furtherance of the contract. An exculpatory clause of this nature is not always absolute. It must be construed strictly against the party seeking exemption from liability because of his own fault. *(Wilson & English Constr. Co.*v. *New York Cent. R. R. Co.,*240 App. Div. 479, 483.) It will not be effective against “active interference” by the contraetee or where “delay is protracted to an unreasonable length”. (10 N. Y. Jur., Contracts, § 335, pp. 336-338; and eases there cited, in many of which the language of the “no damage” clause was substantially more favorable to the contraetee than here.) Upon this issue, as upon the other relevant issues, plaintiff is entitled to a trial. Defendant also interposes an objection to the pleading, which we find untenable. Order affirmed, with $75 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.
#### Peter Manceri, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Joseph Manceri, Appellant, v. City of New York, Defendant, and Anthony Greico, Respondent.

Order, entered on August 31, 1960, dismissing amended complaint as against defendant-respondent Greico, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to grant leave to plaintiff-appellant to replead within 20 days after service upon his attorney of a copy of the order filed herein, with notice of entry; and the said order otherwise unanimously affirmed, on the law, without costs, and judgment entered on October 3, 1960, vacated, without costs. The amended complaint expressly alleges that the defendant Greico “ was on duty as an Assistant District Attorney ” at the time he uttered the alleged slanderous words concerning the plaintiff who had been apprehended and interrogated in connection with a certain murder and charged therewith. It is further alleged that the words were spoken by the defendant “ in the course of his employment and duties as Assistant District Attorney.” It is settled law that *“*The doctrine of immunity based on official privilege is recognized in this State, being based upon *‘*consideration of public policy and to secure the unembarrassed and efficient administration of justice **** * ’ * * * [and] [t]he desirability of such a policy is easily recognized as essential in the conduct of official business.” *(Cheatum*v. *Wehle,*5 N Y 2d 585, 592—593.) It is also clear that the defendant in the exercise of his official duties as Assistant District Attorney performs quasi-judicial functions. (See 13 N. Y. Jur. 179-180; *People*v. *Fielding,*158 N. Y. 542, 547; *Matter of McDonald*v. *Goldstein,*273 App., Div. 649, 651; *Yaselli*v. *Goff,*12 F. 2d 396, 404, affd. 275 U. S. 503; *Gregoire*v. *Biddle,*177 F. 2d 579, 580, cert. denied 339 U. S. 949.) Within such functions are included the acts of such an official in the investigation of criminal charges and interrogation of persons in connection therewith. Consequently, the words spoken by an Assistant District Attorney are privileged when uttered in the course of his employment while performing such functions. (See Restatement, Torts, §§ 585, 586, 589.) In view of the foregoing, the express allegations of the complaint herein appear to preclude the plaintiff from a recovery against the defendant for the speaking of the alleged words; and in any event, to allow such allegations to stand as pleaded could cause unnecessary confusion in the future conduct of this litigation, since plaintiff also seeks to hold the codefendant, the City of New York, liable for the allegedly defamatory utterances. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### 1852.246-71 Government contract quality assurance functions.

As prescribed in 1846.470, insert the following clause:

# Government Contract Quality Assurance Functions (OCT 1988)

In accordance with the inspection clause of this contract, the Government intends to perform the following functions at the locations indicated:

| Item | Quality Assurance Function | Location |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | |

[Insert the items involving quality assurance, the quality assurance functions, and where the functions will be performed]

(End of clause)

[54 FR 28340, July 5, 1989, as amended at 55 FR 27090, June 19, 1990; 62 FR 14035, Mar. 25, 1997]