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

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>



<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>          DEC-31-1999

<CASH>                        2,523,388
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                    41,300
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,564,688
<PP&E>                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                2,669,876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           100,988
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                     (318,157)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  2,669,876
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                300,152
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    12,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                560,180
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              233,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (505,232)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           2,286,026
<DISCONTINUED>                  980,945
<EXTRAORDINARY>              (1,121,200)
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                  2,145,771
<EPS-BASIC>                      5.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                      5.63



</TABLE>
#### 227.7013 Recordation.

Executive Order No. 9424 of 18 February 1944 requires all executive Departments and agencies of the Government to forward through appropriate channels to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, for recording, all Government interests in patents or applications for patents.
M. P. No. 75-156.

#### Financial Development Corporation *v.*Royal Crest Rest Center, Inc. *et al.*

*Selya and Iannuccillo, Anthony G. Iannuccillo,*for petitioner. *Bordieri, Gallone, Penza & Olenn, J. Renn Olenn, Paul J. Bordieri,*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
#### Milo Crawford, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. Investors Planning Corp., Appellant.

In a negligence action by plaintiff Milo Crawford to recover damages for personal injury, and by her husband Charles Crawford for loss of services, defendant appeals: (a) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 21, 1963, which granted its motion to direct plaintiff Milo Crawford to submit to a physical examination by a physician designated by it, to the extent of directing such physical examination to proceed before another physician designated by the court; and (b) from an order of the same court, dated February 24, 1964 and made upon reargument, which adhered to the original determination. Appeal from original order of November 21, 1963 dismissed as academic; that order was superseded by the later order granting reargument. Order of February 24, 1964 reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In our opinion, the instant record on appeal is insufficient: (a) to show proper procedural compliance; and (b) to render defeasible the defendant’s nomination of an examining physician. By virtue of rules I and X contained in part 4 of the rules of this court, effective September 1, 1963, regulating physical examinations and the exchange of medical information in personal injury and death actions, the defendant should have served a notice fixing the time and place of plaintiff’s physical examination by a physician of its own selection. If such notice had been served, plaintiffs then would have had five days within which to move upon the ground, *inter alia,*that “the physician named is objectionable”. The record shows that neither such a notice was served nor such a motion made. Passing these procedural omissions, the record contains no reasonable basis for plaintiffs’ objection to the physician named by the defendant. It appears that the reasons for plaintiffs’ objections were made known to defendant’s attorneys, and possibly to the learned Special Term; but no such reasons are specifically set out in the record. Under all the circumstances, the matter must be remitted to Special Term for further proceedings. Defendant may elect to serve the notice required by rule I, in which event plaintiffs may timely move, upon express grounds of objection, to vacate the defendant’s choice of physician; or, should the parties stipulate to waive such demand, the matter may be submitted to the Special Term for determination *de novo*upon additional papers specifically and at length disclosing the reasons for plaintiffs’ objections to the physician of defendant’s choice. There will thus be available a reviewable record upon which it may be determined whether the Special Term properly exercised its discretion in rejecting or upholding the defendant’s nomination of the examining physician. Beldock, P. J., EQeinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of John W. Dalley, Deceased. Lawrence G. Williams, as Cosuccessor Trustee, Appellant; Orville H. Mann, Cosuccessor Trustee, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to judicially settle the account of the trustees under the will of John W. Dailey, deceased, and to construe said will, Lawrence G. Williams, as a successor trustee of the trust created thereby, appeals from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County, entered June 14, 1963 upon the Acting Surrogate’s decision, as adjudged that the original trustees or their successors were without power: (a) to retain or make other than legal investments; (b) to retain certain real property in the trust; or (c) to retain certain common stocks of corporations while the retained real property constitutes more than 35% of the aggregate market value of all the principal assets of the trust. Decree, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing and filing briefs, payable from the trust funds. The learned Acting Surrogate correctly construed the provisions of the will as neither empowering the original trustees or their successors to make nor to retain investments in the trust fund other than those investments approved by statute (Personal Property Law, § 21). In determining the aggregate value of the property of the trust fund, the value of the investments in real property within the trust • fund must be considered and counted for the purposes set forth in the statute (Personal Property Law, § 21, subd. 1, pars. [1], [m]). Since no question of the application of the doctrine of *res judicata*is properly before us (cf. *Matter of Roche,*259 N. Y. 458; *Matter of Emmerich,*175 Misc. 228, 230), we do not pass upon the effect of the prior decrees of the Surrogate’s Court or of the orders of the Supreme Court, none of which is contained in the record presently before us for review. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 215.406-3 Documenting the negotiation.

Follow the procedures at PGI 215.406-3 for documenting the negotiation and uploading sole source business clearance documentation into the Contract Business Analysis Repository.

[78 FR 21850, Apr. 12, 2013]
225.7705-2 Waiver of prohibition. ( a ) The prohibition in 225.7705-1 may be waived upon issuance of a determination, approved in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, that— ( 1 ) The program or project clearly contributes to United States national interests or strategic objectives;
( 2 ) The Government of Afghanistan has requested or expressed a need for the program or project;
( 3 ) The program or project has been coordinated with the Government of Afghanistan, and with any other implementing agencies or international donors;
( 4 ) Security conditions permit effective implementation and oversight of the program or project;
( 5 ) Safeguards to detect, deter, and mitigate corruption and waste, fraud, and abuse of funds are in place;
( 6 ) Adequate arrangements have been made for the sustainment of the program or project following its completion, including arrangements with respect to funding and technical capacity for sustainment; and
( 7 ) Meaningful metrics have been established to measure the progress and effectiveness of the program or project in meeting its objectives.
( b ) The following officials are authorized to approve the determination described in paragraph (a) of this section: ( 1 ) In the case of a program or project with an estimated lifecycle cost of less than $1 million, by the contracting officer.
( 2 ) In the case of a program or project with an estimated lifecycle cost of $1 million or more, but less than $20 million, by the senior U.S. officer in the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan.
( 3 ) In the case of a program or project with an estimated lifecycle cost of $20 million or more, but less than $40 million, by the Commander of United States Forces-Afghanistan.
( 4 ) In the case of a program or project with an estimated lifecycle cost of $40 million or more, by the Secretary of Defense.
( c ) Congressional notification is required within 15 days of issuance of a determination to waive the prohibition for programs or projects valued at $40 million or more in accordance with paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-4810



# 
E VERTON B ARTLEY ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.

(CR-00-210) Submitted: April 18, 2003 Decided: May 15, 2003 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL David H. Rogers, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J.Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Everton Bartley appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and conspiracy to import cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 963 (2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Bartley contends he was denied his rights under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (2000), and his constitutional right to a speedy trial. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Stoudenmire , 74 F.3d 60, 62 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Reavis , 48 F.3d 763, 770 (4th Cir. 1995). We find no error in the district court’s decision to deny Bartley’s motion to dismiss for denial of his statutory speedy trial rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7), (8)(A); United States v. Sarno , 24 F.3d 618, 622 (4th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Tedder , 801 F.2d 1437, 1450 (4th Cir. 1986). Bartley also asserts that the delay in proceedings violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. This claim is likewise meritless. See Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972); United States v. Thomas , 55 F.3d 144, 149 (4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Bartley’s conviction is affirmed. 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.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. B ARTLEY
* 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. 97-31228 Summary Calendar

WISTING FIERRO RUIZ, ET AL, Petitioners, WISTING FIERRO RUIZ, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION OAKDALE; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE TEXARKANA; U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS; JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General; KATHLEEN M. HAWK, Director U.S. Bureau of Prisons; DONNA MOTT; DORA LOPEZ; DARREN FORTENOT; CARL CASTERLINE, Warden; JOHN DOE, Unknown Officer of Recordkeeping; RICHARD J. GOODSELL; JOHN DOE; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION PLEASANTON CALIFORNIA, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-408

- - - - - - - - - - August 14, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Wisting Fierro Ruiz, federal prisoner No. 59534-079, challenges the district court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint. Having reviewed theNo. 97-31228 -2- record and the briefs of the parties, we AFFIRM , for essentially the same reasons adopted by the district court. Ruiz v. Federal Correctional Institution, Oakdale , No. 95-408 (W.D. La. June 27, 1997 and July 29, 1997).
AFFIRMED.
H " î

H î

"

H î

"

H î"

H H

H H

î

î

î

î

"

"

"

"

H î

"

H î"

H î

"

H H

H î

î

î "

" "

H î"

H î

"

H

î "

H

H

î

î

"

"

H H

î î

"

"

H H H H

H

H

H

H

H H

H

H

î

î î

î

î

îî

îî

î

î

î

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

H

î

"

HH

î î " "

H î "

H

"î

H

H

î

î

"

"

H î

?

"

?

4050

4250

4200

4150

4200

4200

4150

4250

4100

4100

4200

4200

4200

4150

4200

4100

4150

4150

4150

4150

4250

4200

4100

4200

4150

4200

4150

4250

4200

4150

4200

4150

4150

4200

4200

4150

4150

4200

4250

4250

4100

4100

4250

£¤54

BU

NKER HILL RD

CO RD-13

MIDDLEWATER RD

CO RD-16

CO RD-13

MIDDLEWATER RD

Mildred

Lake

Twin Mill

Bennett

Sand

Hills

Syndicate

Hills

McCrory Ranch

Whiteaker

Ranch

Middle

Water

King

SW

King Beck

Ranch

Syndicate

Hills

Windy

Hill

Canyon

School

Wells

Ranch

6

82

76

79

73

99 000m

77

85

97

280 E

30"

000m

75

00

39

74

96

39

39

01

4

80

74

78

010

6

6

57'

6

39

000

75

30"

73

6

82

52' 02

93

39

E

55'

000

95 96

94

6

39

92

80

39

76

000 97

81

39

7

39

83

36°

30"

39

6 7

102°

39

52'30" FV

35°

39

57'

7

250

39

7

00

GV 102°

52'

39

FEET

N

39

6 7

000m

6

FEET

39

39

3

39

39

39

6

970

93 7

39

47'

84

35°

39

102°

55'

000

30"

47'

50'

79

94 98

52' 30"

6

81

50'

39

00' 00' FEET

FV

78

01

102°

84

FEET

02

39

6

30"

N

30"

GV

45'

85

36°

39

6

39

000m

95 98

83

6

86

45'

TEXAS

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

SYNDICATE HILLS QUADRANGLE

TEXAS-HARTLEY CO.

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

SYNDICATE HILLS, TX

2012

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

WXInterstate Route /. US Route H State Route

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Imagery...............................................NAIP, August 2010

Roads..............................................©2006-2012 TomTom

Names..........................................................GNIS, 2012

Hydrography....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2002

Boundaries....................Census, IBWC, IBC, USGS, 1972 - 2012

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 13S

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Texas Coordinate System of 1983 (north zone)

This map was produced to conform with the

National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.7

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0

MILES

1

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

FV GV

700

13S

×

Ù

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2012 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 17 ́

23 MILS

7° 25 ́

132 MILS
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR NORTHERN ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

PHILLIP NEGRON, ) CASE: 12cv3288

PLAINTIFF, ) JUDGE LEINENWEBER 

v. ) MAG. JUDGE GILBERT

VILLAGE OF MELROSE PARK, )

JOHN SCATCHELL, Ind. Cap., )

SAM PITASSI, Ind. Cap., )

DEFENDANTS. )

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFCATION & REQUEST FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE THE ATTACHED PROPOSED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, through counsel, Christopher C. Cooper, 

and seeks clarification of the Minute Order, Doc. 32.

(1) Plaintiff filed bankruptcy.

(2) All but one claim in the above captioned matter is 

pre- petition. 

(3) Counsel for the Trustee has filed an appearance in the above 

captioned matter. Trustee desire to keep the case caption "as is."

(4) The Trustee has hired the undersigned along with Attorney 

David Sigale to represent the Estate in the above captioned matter.

(5) Plaintiff understands that his Estate owns Pre-Petition claims. 

(6) Plaintiff seeks to amend pursuant to the Court's February 

13, 2013 order; however, not just to add with counts for non-monetary 

relief; but, as well to maintain his counts for monetary relief and to add 

one post-petition claim.

(7) Since the minute order reads: "...Cause dismissed without prejudice and with 

leave to re-file and limit the prayer for non monetary relief. Civil case terminated. Mailed 

Case: 1:12-cv-03288 Document #: 36 Filed: 02/28/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:336
2

notice(wp, )," Plaintiff's counsel consulted with counsel for the Trustee, then felt it was proper to 

seek clarification from the Court [first]; rather, than filing a Second Amended Complaint which---

goes outside of the limits of the minute order--- and includes counts for monetary relief, counts for 

non-monetary relief and one post-petition claim. Attached to this motion is Plaintiff's proposed 

Second Amended Complaint.

Respectfully Submitted, 

s\Christopher C. Cooper, ESQ., One of the Attorneys for the Plaintiff & 

the Estate

DATED: February 28, 2013

Law Office of Christopher Cooper, Inc.

500 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 1514, Chicago, IL 60611 [or]

3620 W. 80th Lane, Merrillville, IN 46410

Tel: 312 371 6752 FAX: 866 334 7458 E-Mail: 

cooperlaw3234@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: The undersigned affirms that he filed the

foregoing on ECF on February 28, 2013 and that Defendants are 

registered e-filers. s\Christopher C. Cooper

Case: 1:12-cv-03288 Document #: 36 Filed: 02/28/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:337
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,077
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,774
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,771
<PP&E>                                         204,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 368,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          121,845
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           291
<OTHER-SE>                                     224,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   368,480
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               546,273
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  578,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,748
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,562)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,174)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,388)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,388)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.66)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12



Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries
Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Years Ended December 31,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Dollars in millions)                             2001             2000             1999            1998            1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                          <C>               <C>             <C>              <C>             <C>
Income:
   Income before provision for
      income taxes                           $       238.2     $       167.9   $      126.7     $     104.6     $      87.8
   Fixed charges                                     327.0             234.7          135.7           132.4           130.2
                                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Income before provision for
      income taxes and fixed charges         $       565.2     $       402.6          262.4           237.0           218.0
                                             =================================================================================

Fixed charges:
   Interest expense                          $       321.5     $       229.2   $      130.0     $     126.7     $     124.7
   Preferred stock dividend
      requirement(1)                                   5.5               5.5            5.7             5.7             5.5
                                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             $       327.0             234.7          135.7           132.4           130.2
                                             =================================================================================

Ratio of income before provision
   for income taxes and fixed
   charges to fixed charges                            1.73              1.72           1.93            1.79            1.67
                                             =================================================================================

(1) Grossed up to a pre-tax basis.

</TABLE>
#### 232.1108 Payment by Governmentwide commercial purchase card.

[87 FR 65517, Oct. 28, 2022]