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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             996
<SECURITIES>                                      1813
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3352
<ALLOWANCES>                                       104
<INVENTORY>                                       2813
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9797
<PP&E>                                             870
<DEPRECIATION>                                     731
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   13059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6565
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             1200
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                        4296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     13059
<SALES>                                          43479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 43479
<CGS>                                            41291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      949
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   104
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  58
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    822
<INCOME-TAX>                                        82
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                740
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       740
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 3406

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3406 appear at 76 FR 4809, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3406.21 Intent to submit a proposal.

To assist NIFA in preparing for the review of proposals, institutions planning to submit proposals may be requested to complete Form NIFA-711, “Intent to Submit a Proposal,” provided in the application package. NIFA will determine each year if Intent to Submit a Proposal forms will be requested and provide such information in the program announcement. If Intent to Submit a Proposal forms are required, one form should be completed and returned for each proposal an institution anticipates submitting. Submitting this form does not commit an institution to any course of action, nor does failure to send this form prohibit an institution from submitting a proposal.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Harley W. Gregg, Respondent, v. Dallas *&*Mavis Forwarding Co. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board filed January 2, 1968 awarding benefits to the claimant. The appellants contend that as a matter of law the board could not find an employer-employee relationship upon the present record. The claimant was the operator of a tractor-trailer truck at the time of the accident. The proper title to the units was in claimant’s stepfather, Harry R. Geitter. The board found that claimant was in the process of buying the tractorArailer from Geitter. Upon the present record it would appear that claimant was an equitable owner of the vehicle, the financing agreement for the truck having Geitter listed as a cosigner. On May 2, 1966 the claimant as the agent of Geitter signed a lease agreement with the appellant employer. Pursuant to the agreement, the lessor would haul freight for the lessee and would receive a percentage of the amount paid to the lessee for such hauling. The lease provided that the lessor was an independent contractor and that the driver of the units would not foe an employee of the lessee. However, the appellants concede that this declaration of status is not controlling and is merely evidence of the intention of the parties. The appellants first contend that since the lessor-was Geitter, the legal owner of the vehicle, the lessee could not be the employer of claimant and cite *Matter of Williams*v. *Solomon*(13 *679A D 2d 159). The *Williams*ease is not controlling since the only issue before the court was whether or not the board *could*find the lessor to be the sole employer. *Matter of Williams*v. *Solomon ( supra)*does not stand for the proposition that a lessee cannot be the employer of the drivers of the lessor as a matter of law. As noted in *Matter of Smith*v. *Refrigerated Food Express*(27 A D 2d 601) the issue of employer-employee relationship is generally one of fact for the board. (See also, *Matter of Palmer*v. *American Freightways Co.,*31 A D 2d 850.) While there is evidence upon the present record which would support a finding of independent contractor, there was evidence showing sufficient control exercised over the operator of the tractor-trailer by the lessee. This court cannot say that the record established an independent contractor relationship as a matter of law and thereby precluded a question of fact for the board. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.
<page>
                                                           Exhibit 32.1





                         NORDSTROM CREDIT, INC.

                            13531 EAST CALEY

                       CENTENNIAL, COLORADO 80111

                       CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT
                  REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


I, Kevin T. Knight, the President of Nordstrom Credit, Inc. (the
"Company") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
certify that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended July 31, 2004 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission:


         -  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         -  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results
            of operations of the Company.


                                          /s/ Kevin T. Knight
                                          --------------------
                                          Kevin T. Knight
                                          President
                                          September 9, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Nordstrom Credit, Inc. and will be retained by
Nordstrom Credit, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and15d-14(a) as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.I, Michael McHugh, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of The Fashion House Holdings, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and I have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   *Date: April 13, 2006* */s/ Michael McHugh*  *By: Michael McHugh*  *Chief Financial Officer*
#### In the Matter of Bob & George’s Duplex, Inc., Petitioner, v. State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Determination of the State Liquor Authority dated October 4, 1968 disapproving petitioner’s application for a special on-premises liquor license for premises located at 55 Grove Street, New York City, annulled on the law without costs or disbursements and the proceeding remanded for further hearings, in the interest of justice. The record reveals that petitioner applied for what is known as a tavern license on June 21, 1968. Respondent Authority recommended disapproval of the application. In view of the change of circumstances which occurred subsequent to the determination of the authority, the interest of justice dictates a rehearing wherein all pertinent facts may be developed. Concur ■—Eager, J. P., McGivern, Markewieh, Nunez and McNally, JJ.
1/13/14 EDGAR ONLINE - TEXAS VANGUARD OIL CO (TVOC) - 10-K - 3/28/2013

yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=9191026-55473-59895&type=sect&dcn=0001185185-13-000643 1/1

Enter your Email to Register for EDGAR Pro: TEXAS VANGUARD OIL CO (TVOC) 10-K filed 3/28/201

Display Sections View Entire Filing Next Section Previous Section Print Section

TEXAS VANGUARD OIL COMPANY

Balance Sheets

December 31, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

ASSETS

Current assets:

Cash (including certificates of deposit of $1,250,000,pledged, in 2012 and 2011, respectively) $ 9,036,449 $ 8,575,692

Trade accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $209,554 and $209,666 in 2012 and

2011, respectively 140,286 272,819

Prepaid expense 36,053 176,839

Prepaid federal income tax 221,468 27,776

Total current assets 9,434,256 9,053,126

Oil and gas properties, partially pledged, successful efforts method of accounting:

Proven properties 9,295,584 8,877,890

Unproven properties 152,212 160,441

Office furniture and equipment 156,871 233,035

9,604,667 9,271,366

Less accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization (4,988,052) (4,815,808)

4,616,615 4,455,558

Other assets 1,000 1,000

TOTAL ASSETS $ 14,051,871 $ 13,509,684

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

Current liabilities:

Trade accounts payable $ 487,590 $ 414,402

Taxes payable 37,813 41,473

Asset retirement obligation, current portion 4,319 78,797

Notes payable 150,000 150,000

Total current liabilities 679,722 684,672

Deferred federal income taxliability 331,641 322,149

Asset retirement obligation, less current portion 624,000 474,201

Total liabilities 1,635,363 1,481,022
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as the chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003,
that:

      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.


                                         /s/ C. E. PORTER
                                         -------------------------
                                         C. E. Porter
                                         Chief Executive Officer
Date: August 11, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Jenkins, Appellant.

Order entered November 19, 1968, denying after hearing petition for writ of error *coram nobis,*reversed on the law and facts and in the interest of justice, the petition is granted, the judgment of conviction dated April 26, 1964 is vacated (see 26 A D 2d 619) and a new trial ordered. In our opinion, representation of both defendants by the same attorney created a conflict of interest which was prejudicial by reason of the fact that the informer and the petitioner-appellant were represented by appellant’s lawyer without appellant’s knowledge that his codefendant was an informer. (See *People*v. *Byrne,*17 N Y 2d 209.) Concur—■ Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, Nunez, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
§ 3570.273 Scoring. The Agency will score each application using the following scoring factors unless otherwise provided in an annual Notice in the Federal Register: ( a ) *Experience:* Applicant Experience at developing and implementing successful technical assistance and/or training programs: ( 1 ) More than 10 years—40 points.
( 2 ) More than 5 years to 10 years—25 points.
( 3 ) 3 to 5 years—10 points.
( b ) *No prior grants received:* ( 1 ) Applicant has never received a TAT Grant—5 points.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Population:* The average population of proposed area(s) to be served: ( 1 ) 2,500 or less—15 points.
( 2 ) 2,501 to 5,000—10 points.
( 3 ) 5,001 to 10,000—5 points.
( d ) *MHI:* The average median household income (MHI) of proposed area to be served is below the higher of the poverty line or: ( 1 ) 60 percent of the State's MHI—15 points.
( 2 ) 70 percent of the State MHI—10 points.
( 3 ) 90 percent of the State's MHI—5 points.
( e ) *Multi-jurisdictional:* The proposed technical assistance or training project a part of a Multi-jurisdictional project comprised of: ( 1 ) More than 10 jurisdictions—15 points.
( 2 ) More than 5 to 10 jurisdictions—10 points.
( 3 ) 3 to 5 jurisdictions—5 points.
( f ) *Soundness of approach:* Up to 10 points. ( 1 ) Needs assessment: The problem/issue being addressed is clearly defined, supported by data, and addresses the needs;
( 2 ) Goals & objectives are clearly defined, tied to the need as defined in the work plan, and are measurable;
( 3 ) Work plan clearly articulates a well thought out approach to accomplishing objectives & clearly identifies who will be served by the project;
( 4 ) The proposed activities are needed in order for a complete Community Facilities loan and/or grant application.
( g ) *Matching funds:* ( 1 ) There is evidence of the commitment of other cash funds of 20% of the total project costs 10 points.
( 2 ) There is evidence of the commitment of other cash funds of 10% of the total project costs 5 points.
( h ) *State Director discretionary points.* The State Director may award up to 10 discretionary points for the highest priority project in each state, up to 7 points for the second highest priority project in each state and up to 5 points for the third highest priority project that address unforeseen exigencies or emergencies, such as the loss of a community facility due to an accident or natural disaster, or other areas of need in their particular state. The State Director will place written documentation in the project file each time the State Director assigns these points—Up to 10 points.
( i ) *Administrator discretionary points.* The Administrator may award up to 20 discretionary points for projects to address geographic distribution of funds, emergency conditions caused by economic problems, natural disasters and other initiatives identified by the Secretary—Up to 20 points.
#### § 4280.22 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHRISTINE OLSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:03cv147/MCR

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

AMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the Court upon the parties’ Stipulation For Voluntary Dismissal

With Prejudice. (Doc. 106). The previously entered Order of Dismissal (doc. 104) is

amended to the extent this case is dismissed consistent with the parties’ joint stipulation.

The Clerk is directed to close the case in its entirety for all purposes.

ORDERED on this 11th day of October, 2005.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-00147-MCR-MD Document 107 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 1
#### § 51.3068 Badly misshapen.

*Badly misshapen* means that the avocado is so badly curved, constricted, pointed or otherwise deformed that the appearance is very seriously affected.
34.103 Testing and qualification.

(a) Contractors receiving requests from a TitleIII project contractor for testing and qualification of a

TitleIII industrial resource shall refer such requests to the contracting officer. The contracting

officer shall evaluate the request in accordance with agency procedures to determine whether: (1)

the TitleIII industrial resource is being or potentially may be used in the development or

manufacture of a major system or item of supply; and (2) for major systems in production, remaining

quantities to be acquired are sufficient to justify incurring the cost of testing and qualification. In

evaluating this request, the contracting officer shall consult with the Defense Production Act Office,

TitleIII Program, located at:

Wright Patterson Air Force Base OH 45433-7739.

(b) If the determination at 34.103(a) is affirmative, the contracting officer shall modify the contract

to require the contractor to test the TitleIII industrial resource for qualification.

(c) The Defense Production Act Office, TitleIII Program, shall provide to the contractor the industrial

resource produced by the TitleIII project contractor in sufficient amounts to meet testing needs.

Parent topic: Subpart 34.1 - Testing, Qualification and Use of Industrial Resources Developed

Under TitleIII, Defense Production Act
#### Council of Municipal Hospital Community Boards et al., Plaintiffs, v Edward I. Koch, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, and James Butler, as President of New York City Department of Hospitals Local 420, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al., Intervenors-Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 25, 1979, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Myers, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Markewich, JJ.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT KURT WILLIAM L'HEUREUX, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-971 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed October 2, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Christine Greider, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Christine Trakas Thornhill, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kelly O'Neill, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2575 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2575

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain golf club fairway heads.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 6, 2006

Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain golf club fairway heads.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN GOLF CLUB FAIRWAY HEADS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.95.06      Golf club fairway   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         heads of                                                           31/2009
                         stainless steel,
                         each with a sole
                         weight screw
                         system (provided
                         for in subheading
                         9506.39.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 4:20-cv-00410-MW-MAF Document 69 Filed 06/16/22 Page 1 of 10
Case 4:20-cv-00410-MW-MAF Document 69 Filed 06/16/22 Page 2 of 10
Case 4:20-cv-00410-MW-MAF Document 69 Filed 06/16/22 Page 3 of 10
Case 4:20-cv-00410-MW-MAF Document 69 Filed 06/16/22 Page 4 of 10
Case 4:20-cv-00410-MW-MAF Document 69 Filed 06/16/22 Page 5 of 10
Case 4:20-cv-00410-MW-MAF Document 69 Filed 06/16/22 Page 6 of 10
Case 4:20-cv-00410-MW-MAF Document 69 Filed 06/16/22 Page 7 of 10
Case 4:20-cv-00410-MW-MAF Document 69 Filed 06/16/22 Page 8 of 10
Case 4:20-cv-00410-MW-MAF Document 69 Filed 06/16/22 Page 9 of 10
Case 4:20-cv-00410-MW-MAF Document 69 Filed 06/16/22 Page 10 of 10