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

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income, statement of retained earnings and
statement of cash flows contained in Form 10-Q of Canal Electric Company for
the nine months ended Septmber 30, 1995 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000016906
<NAME> CANAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          272,797
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          3,651
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              20,069
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            26,969
<OTHER-ASSETS>                      13,404
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     336,890
<COMMON>                            38,080
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            8,321
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 52,299
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>      98,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                87,164
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  31,635
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>        1,110
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>         12,820
<LEASES-CURRENT>                       584
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     104,877
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      336,890
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          105,347
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                (1,482)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          89,599
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          88,117
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>             17,230
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                     131
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>      17,361
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             7,037
<NET-INCOME>                        10,324
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>       10,324
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             9,672
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            6,177
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>              19,623
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### Shippen Brothers Lumber Company *v.*Hamby.

January 23, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Morris. Gilmer superior court. November 2, 1911.

*T. A. Brown, A. II. Burtz,*and *J. Z. Foster,*for plaintiff.

*William Butt*and *A. 8. J. Hall,*for defendant.

Atkinson, J.

*No*complaint is made that any error of law was committed on the trial. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial will not be disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Case: 1:12-cv-05077 Document #: 12 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:76
Case: 1:12-cv-05077 Document #: 12 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:77
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6207

BOBBY RAY ROBERTS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-00813-7)

Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Ray Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Ray Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Roberts has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Todd Chaney, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[833 NYS2d 422]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H. Dadd, A.J.], entered November 20, 2006) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. Present—Martoche, J.E, Smith, Centra, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.
225.7102-4 Contract clause. Use the clause at 252.225-7025, Restriction on Acquisition of Forgings, in solicitations and contracts, unless— ( a ) The supplies being acquired do not contain any of the items listed in 225.7102-1; or
( b ) An exception in 225.7102-2 applies. If an exception applies to only a portion of the acquisition, specify the excepted portion in the solicitation and contract.
Reed Smith 

Courtney R. Bateman 

Direct Phone: +1 202 414 9265 

Email: CBateman@reedsmith.com 

February 12,2015 

Nia Daniels, ARM-108 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace 

Rules Division 

800 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 810 

Washington, DC 20591 

Reed Smith LLP 

1301 K Street, N.W. 

Suite 1000- East Tower 

Washington, D.C. 20005-3373 

Tel +1 202 414 9200 

Fax +1 202 414 9299 

reedsmith.com 

Re: Advanced Aerial Inspection Resources Section 333 Exemption Request 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0873 

Dear Ms. Daniels: 

This will confirm that the information requested in your January 26, 2015, correspondence to Wesley 

Oliphant was hand-delivered to your offices on February gth. 

Please contact me with any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

/signed/ 

Courtney R. Bateman 

CRB:lsj 

NEW YORK + LONDON + HONG KONG + CHICAGO + WASHINGTON, D.C. + BEIJING + PARIS • LOS ANGELES + SAN FRANCISCO + PHILADELPHIA • SHANGHAI + PITTSBURGH + HOUSTON 

SINGAPORE+ MUNICH+ ABU DHABI+ PRINCETON • NORTHERN VIRGINIA+ WILMINGTON+ SILICON VALLEY+ DUBAI +CENTURY CITY+ RICHMOND+ ATHENS +KAZAKHSTAN 

US_ACTIVE-120992938.1-CRBATEMA 02/12/2015 1 :23 PM
#### 249.501 General.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Issue review [electronicresource]**
 
1997 | 1998
2000 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10
 
SuDoc Number:PR 42.2:SE 2/2/ | PR 43.2:SE2/2/2002 | PR 42.8/2:
Item Number:0850 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000706559
 
February 5, 2020
246.471 Authorizing shipment of supplies. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) Ordinarily, a representative of the contract administration office signs or stamps the shipping papers that accompany Government source-inspected supplies to release them for shipment. This is done for both prime and subcontracts.
( 2 ) An alternative procedure (see paragraph (b) of this section) permits the contractor to assume the responsibility for releasing the supplies for shipment.
( 3 ) The alternative procedure may include prime contractor release of supplies inspected at a subcontractor's facility.
( 4 ) The use of the alternative procedure releases DoD manpower to perform technical functions by eliminating routine signing or stamping of the papers accompanying each shipment.
( b ) *Alternative Procedures—Contract Release for Shipment.* ( 1 ) For foreign military sales contracts, do not use alternative procedures.
( 2 ) The contract administration office may authorize, in writing, the contractor to release supplies for shipment when— ( i ) The stamping or signing of the shipping papers by a representative of the contract administration office interferes with the operation of the Government contract quality assurance program or takes too much of the Government representative's time;
( ii ) There is sufficient continuity of production to permit the Government to establish a systematic and continuing evaluation of the contractor's control of quality; and
( iii ) The contractor has a record of satisfactory quality, including that pertaining to preparation for shipment.
( 3 ) The contract administration office shall withdraw, in writing, the authorization when there is an indication that the conditions in paragraph (b)(2) of this subsection no longer exist.
( 4 ) When the alternative procedure is used, require the contractor to— ( i ) Type or stamp, and sign, the following statement on the required copy or copies of the shipping paper(s), or on an attachment— The supplies in this shipment— 1. Have been subjected to and have passed all examinations and tests required by the contract; 2. Were shipped in accordance with authorized shipping instructions; 3. Conform to the quality, identity, and condition called for by the contract; and 4. Are of the quantity shown on this document. This shipment was— 1. Released in accordance with section 246.471 of the Defense FAR Supplement; and 2. Authorized by (name and title of the authorized representative of the contract administration office) in a letter dated (date of authorizing letter). (Signature and title of contractor's designated official.)
( ii ) Release and process, in accordance with established instructions, the DD Form 250, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, or other authorized receiving report.
[56 FR 36460, July 31, 1991, as amended at 83 FR 66064, Dec. 21, 2018]
#### 2803.806 Processing suspected violations.

Evidence of suspected violations of 31 U.S.C. 1352, Limitation on the Use of Appropriated Funds to Influence Certain Federal Contracting and Financial Transactions, may be submitted in accordance with agency procedures to the SPE and the OIG or other office designated in Attorney General Order 1931-94.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 October 18, 2019

p1015

Order 

Clerk

October 18, 2019

159405

MICHELE PISCHEA, M.A., LLP, C.A.A.D.C.,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant- Appellant,

v SC: 159405

COA: 342330

Ingham CC: 16-000889-CB

ASSESSMENT AND RELATIONSHIP 

CENTER, LLC and B. CRAIG SMITH, PH.D.,

Defendants/Counterplaintiffs- Appellees,

and

B. CRAIG SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.,

Defendant/Counterplaintiff.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against defendant Assessment 

and Relationship Center, LLC for breach of contract and unjust enrichment as a discovery 

sanction. We further VACATE the July 26, 2017 Ingham Circuit Court order providing 

the same, and we REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration of whether 

dismissal is an appropriate sanction under the governing legal standards, including 

consideration of the appropriateness of lesser sanctions and other factors. See Duray Dev 

LLC v Perrin, 288 Mich App 143, 164-166 (2010).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
#### 2814.404 Rejection of bids.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

EASTERN DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS )

TRUSTEE FOR THE POOLING AND )

SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED AS )

OF APRIL 1, 2005 ASSET-BACKED )

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES )

SERIES 2005-WHQ2 )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 4384

)

TREISSA GRIGGS, PEOPLE OF THE )

STATE OF ILLINOIS, EX REL. )

ILLINOIS STUDENT ASSISTANCE )

COMMISSION, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This newly filed lawsuit is one of the spate of mortgage foreclosure actions that have been

and are being brought in this District Court, each invoking diversity of citizenship as the basis for

federal jurisdiction. Because the Complaint on its face demonstrates the lack of such jurisdiction,

this sua sponte memorandum order dismisses the Complaint and this action on that ground.

Such cases as Wernsing v. Thompson, 423 F.3d 732, 743 (7 Cir. 2005) (internal citations th

and quotation marks omitted) have confirmed that this Court has the obligation to act sua sponte

in this manner if appropriate:

Jurisdiction is the power to declare law, and without it the federal courts cannot

proceed. Accordingly, not only may the federal courts police subject matter

jurisdiction sua sponte, they must. 

In this instance one of the named defendants is “People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Illinois

Student Assistance Commission.” But neither a state nor one of its agencies is a “citizen” for

purposes of diversity jurisdiction (see 15 Moore’s Federal Practice § 102.57[7] (3d Ed. 2012)).

Case: 1:12-cv-04384 Document #: 5 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:39
Accordingly, as stated at the outset, both the Complaint and this action must be and are

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Such dismissal is of course without prejudice to

plaintiff’s right to bring this action in a non federal court of competent jurisdiction.

___________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 8, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-04384 Document #: 5 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:40
23.108-1 Water-efficient products. ( a ) *Program.* EPA's WaterSense® Program makes it easy to find and select water-efficient products that can save water, energy, and money. WaterSense®-labeled products are backed by independent, third-party certification and meet EPA's specifications for water efficiency and performance.
( b ) *Resource.* For additional information on WaterSense® products, see *https://www.epa.gov/watersense/watersense-products .*
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 19 

Denouncing the deadly attack at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International 

Airport, honoring the lives of the victims, offering condolences to their 

families, friends, and all those affected, and commending the efforts 

of law enforcement and emergency response personnel in responding 

to the incident. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23, 2017 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. NELSON, and Mrs. ERNST) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Denouncing the deadly attack at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 

International Airport, honoring the lives of the victims, 

offering condolences to their families, friends, and all 

those affected, and commending the efforts of law enforcement and emergency response personnel in responding to the incident. 

Whereas the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport ranks 21st in the United States in total passenger 

traffic, with over 73,000 travelers passing through each 

day on 1 of the over 650 commercial flights that embark 

and arrive at the airport each day; 

Whereas, on Friday, January 6, 2017, around 1:00 p.m., an 

individual in the baggage claim area of Terminal 2 at 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 19 ATS 

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport shot 

more than 10 people, wounding several and killing 5; 

Whereas the people of the United States grieve for the families of all those affected by this tragedy; 

Whereas the people of the United States honor the memories 

of the 5 individuals who tragically lost their lives; and 

Whereas constant efforts by law enforcement agencies, civilians, and communities are needed to help thwart future 

attacks: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) condemns the deadly attack at Fort Lau3 derdale-Hollywood International Airport on January 

4 6, 2017, where 5 innocent people were killed and 

5 many others were injured; 

6 (2) honors the lives and memories of the vic7 tims killed in the attack and offers sincere condo8 lences to their families and friends; 

9 (3) desires that those injured in the attack 

10 make a full recovery; and 

11 (4) commends the efforts of law enforcement 

12 and emergency response personnel who selflessly 

13 acted to secure the scene and assist those in need. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 132 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 132

   Congratulating the Ashland University women's basketball team for 
 winning the 2017 National Collegiate Athletic Association division II 
                             championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 7, 2017

    Mr. Portman (for himself and Mr. Brown) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
                           and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Congratulating the Ashland University women's basketball team for 
 winning the 2017 National Collegiate Athletic Association division II 
                             championship.

Whereas the Ashland University Eagles won the 2017 National Collegiate Athletic 
        Association (referred to in this preamble as the ``NCAA'') division II 
        women's basketball championship game against the Virginia Union 
        University Panthers at Alumni Hall on the campus of Ohio Dominican 
        University by a score of 93 to 77;
Whereas, with a record of 37-0, the Ashland University Eagles achieved the best 
        record ever by an NCAA division II women's team;
Whereas the 2017 NCAA championship was the second division II national 
        championship for Ashland University during the last 5 years;
Whereas head coach Robyn Fralick was named the 2017 United States Marine Corps 
        Women's Basketball Coaches Association NCAA Division II Coach of the 
        Year;
Whereas assistant coach Kari Pickens was named the 2017 Women's Basketball 
        Coaches Association NCAA Division II Assistant Coach of the Year;
Whereas junior forwards Laina Snyder and Andi Daugherty were named Division II 
        Conference Commissioner's Association All-Americans; and
Whereas Laina Snyder was named the Most Outstanding Player of the NCAA division 
        II women's basketball tournament: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) congratulates the Ashland University women's basketball 
        team on winning the 2017 National Collegiate Athletic 
        Association division II championship; and
            (2) recognizes the contributions and achievements of each 
        player, coach, and staff member of the Ashland University 
        women's basketball team who contributed to the 2016-2017 
        undefeated season.
                                 <all>
```
#### Tommie Dixon, Respondent, v Sheriff of the County of Suffolk, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, *879dated May 2, 1978, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiffs cross motion, *inter alia,*to restore the action to the Ready Calendar. This appeal brings up for review so much of a further order of the same court, dated July 20, 1978, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order dated May 2, 1978 dismissed as academic. That order was superseded by the order granting reargument. Order dated July 20, 1978 reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, and, upon reargument, defendant’s motion, which was, in fact, one for summary judgment, is granted and the cross motion is denied. Defendant is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. The defendant moved at Special Term to dismiss the complaint based on the running of the Statute of Limitations. Special Term denied the motion as untimely pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [e]) and stated that the Statute of Limitations question was "reserved for the trier of fact.” However, the defendant’s motion was actually for summary judgment and was not untimely (see CPLR 3212, subd [a]). With respect to the merits, the motion should have been granted since there is no factual question which requires a trial for resolution. The plaintiff was incarcerated in the Suffolk County Jail and was in the custody of the defendant from March 28, 1972 until December 29, 1972, when he was released. The complaint alleges that while confined "the defendant negligently and recklessly failed and refused to provide [the] plaintiff with the proper medical attention suitable and fitting to his condition”. The "condition” was eventually diagnosed as tuberculosis. This action was commenced by service of a summons and complaint. The summons is dated August 30, 1977, which is approximately four years and eight months after the plaintiff was released from the custody of the defendant. The Statute of Limitations governing this action is three years (see CPLR 214). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff alleged a "course of continuous treatment” by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff concludes that the Statute of Limitations had not yet started to run. This contention is rejected. The "continuous treatment” given the plaintiff was rendered by a doctor at a different facility (The Suffolk County Home Infirmary). There is no allegation, and there are no facts alleged which would support an allegation, that the treating doctor was employed by, or associated with, the defendant in any way. In addition, there is no evidence that the doctor or the infirmary relied on any diagnosis or treatment by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment. In light of our disposition of this case, we do not pass on the other contention raised on appeal. O’Connor, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Mangano, JJ., concur.