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


<ARTICLE>                                           7







       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           11310663
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                 0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                   0
<EQUITIES>                                         5438
<MORTGAGE>                                            0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                         0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 11316101
<CASH>                                          1630495
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                26677
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           427209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14597848
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 3343845
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                               73703
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  3943855
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            174513
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0 
<PREFERRED>                                           0 
<COMMON>                                         466239
<OTHER-SE>                                      5708290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14597848
<PREMIUMS>                                      4350247
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              218904 
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                52175
<OTHER-INCOME>                                        0
<BENEFITS>                                      3201120

<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        6486     
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             578781 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (161423)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (161423)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0 
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (161423)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.01)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                   1340630
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                    0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                      0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                               1373949
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 1052528
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                  2025000
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                           288102

        




</TABLE>
(114 App. Div. 814)

#### DAVIS v. REFLEX CAMERA CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Costs—Appeaj>—Costs to Abide Event.

Where on appeal by defendant a judgment for plaintiff was reversed and a new trial ordered with “costs to abide event,” and plaintiff was successful on the second trial, he was entitled to haVe the costs on appeal taxed to defendant.

[Ed. Note.—For cases In point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Costs, § 938.]

Appeal from-Yonkers City, Court.

Action by Edward P. Davis against the Reflex Camera Company. Prom an order retaxing costs on a judgment by striking out items and reducing the judgment accordingly, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, and GAYNOR, JJ.

John H. Ferguson, for appellant.

William Riley, for respondent.

JENKS, J.

The appeal is from an order of the city judge of Yonkers retaxing costs on a judgment by striking out certain items taxed by the clerk, and reducing the judgment accordingly. The plaintiff recovered a judgment upon a verdict. Upon defendant’s appeal therefrom, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial' on the minutes, we reversed the judgment and the order, and ordered a new trial, “costs to abide event.” 105 App. Div. 96, 93 N. Y. Supp. 844. On the second trial the plaintiff again recovered a judgment, and thereupon the costs now objected to were taxed. The appellant does not challenge the propriety of the items, but contends that the plaintiff, being unsuccessful on the appeal, is not entitled to tax the costs thereof as the prevailing party upon the new trial. The costs were “to abide the event,” and the event is favorable to the plaintiff; that is, he has succeeded in the trial, for there is in the eye of the law but one trial of this action, namely, that which has terminated in favor of the plaintiff. Benjamin v. Ver Nooy, 168 N. Y. 578, at page 583, 61 N. E. 971.

We are of opinion that the taxation by the clerk was correct. Koon v. Thurman, 2 Hill, 357; First N. Bank of Meadville v. Fourth N. Bank of New York, 84 N. Y. 469; Franey v. Smith, 126 N. Y. 658-660, 27 N. E. 559. There is, of course, a distinction between an award of costs in the terms pf the judgment in this case and awards of “costs to the appellant or to the plaintiff or the defendant to abide the event.”

The order is reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
#### § 51.2760 Foreign material.

*Foreign material* means pieces or loose particles of any substance other than peanut kernels or skins.
Page 1 of 3

Cases No. 4:98cr69-RH and 4:13cv325-RH/CAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASES NO. 4:98cr69-RH

 4:13cv325-RH/CAS

CARLON BURNICE CRAWFORD,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE § 2255 MOTION

The defendant has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for relief from his 

judgment of conviction. The motion is before the court on the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation, ECF No. 45. No objections have been filed. This 

order accepts the report and recommendation and denies the § 2255 motion.

A defendant may appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion only if the district 

court or court of appeals issues a certificate of appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 
Page 2 of 3

Cases No. 4:98cr69-RH and 4:13cv325-RH/CAS

(2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. 

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000) (setting 

out the standards applicable to a § 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said 

in Slack:

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make 

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable 

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 

petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the 

issues presented were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.” 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in 

order to obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural 

grounds, a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 

The defendant has not made the required showing. This order thus denies a 

certificate of appealability. Because the defendant has not obtained—and is not 

entitled to—a certificate of appealability, any appeal by the defendant will not be 

taken in good faith. I certify under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) that 

any appeal will not be taken in good faith and that the defendant is not otherwise 

entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Accordingly,
Page 3 of 3

Cases No. 4:98cr69-RH and 4:13cv325-RH/CAS

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The clerk must enter a judgment stating, “The defendant’s motion for 

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.

2. The defendant’s application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

3. Leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

SO ORDERED on August 6, 2013.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge
II 

Calendar No. 413 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2603 

To reduce temporarily the royalty required to be paid for sodium produced 

on Federal lands, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7, 2006 

Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which 

was read the first time 

APRIL 24, 2006 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the royalty required to be paid for 

sodium produced on Federal lands, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Soda Ash Royalty Re5 duction Act of 2006’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 2603 PCS

1 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN ROYALTY RATE ON SODA ASH. 

2 Notwithstanding section 102(a)(9) of the Federal 

3 Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

4 1701(a)(9)), section 24 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 

5 U.S.C. 262), and the terms of any lease under that Act, 

6 the royalty rate on the quantity or gross value of the out7 put of sodium compounds and related products at the 

8 point of shipment to market from Federal land in the 5- 

9 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 

10 Act shall be 2 percent. 

11 SEC. 3. STUDY. 

12 After the end of the 4-year period beginning on the 

13 date of the enactment of this Act, and before the end of 

14 the 5-year period beginning on that date, the Secretary 

15 of the Interior shall report to the Congress on the effects 

16 of the royalty reduction under this Act, including— 

17 (1) the amount of sodium compounds and re18 lated products at the point of shipment to market 

19 from Federal land during that 4-year period; 

20 (2) the number of jobs that have been created 

21 or maintained during the royalty reduction period; 

22 (3) the total amount of royalty paid to the 

23 United States on the quantity or gross value of the 

24 output of sodium compounds and related products at 

25 the point of shipment to market produced during 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•S 2603 PCS

1 that 4-year period, and the portion of such royalty 

2 paid to States; and 

3 (4) a recommendation of whether the reduced 

4 royalty rate should apply after the end of the 5-year 

5 period beginning on the date of the enactment of 

6 this Act. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
Calendar No. 413 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2603 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the royalty required to be 

for other purposes. paid for sodium produced on Federal lands, and 

APRIL 24, 2006 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
§ 460.12 Calculating PCCP amounts for WFRP. ( a ) For the 2022 crop year, for eligible WFRP acres, the amount of premium support under PCCP for each acre will be $5, with a maximum equal to the amount of WFRP premium owed by the insured.
( b ) PCCP amounts for WFRP are limited to the full amount of premium owed by the insured for the WFRP policy. If the full amount under PCCP would result in a negative premium balance for the insured, PCCP amounts will be limited to the full amount of premium owed.
( c ) If the eligible WFRP acres are adjusted or revised for any reason, such as an overreporting of planted cover crop acres, the amount under PCCP will be based on the eligible WFRP acres after any such amendment.
#### § 51.51 Prohibited uses of approved identification.

No label or advertising material used on, or in conjunction with any product, shall bear a brand name, trademark, product name or any other descriptive material that incorporates, resembles, simulates, or alludes to any official U.S. Department of Agriculture grade mark, grade statement, continuous inspection legend, sampling mark or sampling statement, or combination of one or more thereof.
#### Anna P. Whitney, as Executrix of Emily Whitney, Deceased, Respondent, v. City of New York et al., Defendants. City of New York, *529Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. New York Telephone Company, Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Order entered on March 11, 1966, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants. The motion to dismiss the fourth-party complaint is also granted, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiff-executrix in this ease seeks to hold the city responsible for the death of her decedent. The death was caused by the explosion of a boiler located in a building of the New York Telephone Company which, in this action, is designated as the fourth-party defendant. The theory of the action against the city is that it was negligent in failing to conduct inspections of the boiler as required by the Administrative Code of the City of New York (§§ B26-1.0— B26-4.0). The New York Telephone Company moved to dismiss the complaint against the city, and also the city’s fourth-party complaint as against it. This motion was joined in by the city. Special Term denied the motion and both the Telephone Company and the city appeal. We conclude that the motion should have been granted. As indicated, plaintiff seeks to impose liability on the city, merely because the city failed to carry out a statutory function. Unless it can be said that the statute was enacted for the benefit of an individual, no liability may be imposed for failure to carry out the statutory function. The ease of *Motyka*v. *City of Amsterdam*(15 N Y 2d 134) recently decided by the Court of Appeals is quite similar to the one we are now considering. The court in that ease held the city, there involved, free from liability, reaffirming the long standing doctrine enunciated in the case of *Steitz*v. *City of Beacon*(295 N. Y. 51) wherein it was held that the mere failure to perform a statutory government function, does not alone lead to liability in tort. We conclude that the sections of the Administrative Code providing for boiler inspections by the city do not create a direct duty running to an individual, but rather are for the benefit of the common good. Accordingly, the city’s failure here to carry out the requirements of the sections involved does not create liability. Settle order on notice. Concur-—• Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ. [49 Misc 2d 901.]
39.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes acquisition policies and procedures for use in acquiring—

(a) Information technology, including financial management systems, consistent with other parts of

this regulation, OMB Circular No.A-127, Financial Management Systems and OMB Circular

No.A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources.

(b) Information and communication technology (see 2.101(b)).

Parent topic: Part 39 - Acquisition of Information Technology
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 6 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 6 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 6 Filed 11/23/20 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            Jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<CASH>                                         1297
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6377
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                     732
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              10745
<PP&E>                                        99427
<DEPRECIATION>                                36052
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                77695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         16578
<BONDS>                                       15133
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        234
<OTHER-SE>                                    34828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  77695
<SALES>                                       15362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              15362
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 15791
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              894
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1255)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (413)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (842)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (813)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.44)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 51.1556 Well shaped.

*Well shaped* means that the potato has the normal shape for the variety.
Exhibit 10.1


 


AGREEMENT


 


THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
23rd day of February, 2009, by and between                                   
(the “Executive”) and MGP Ingredients, Inc.
(the “Company”).


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, the Executive is employed by the
Company as one of the Company’s principal executives.


 


WHEREAS, the Company, because of current
economic circumstances, has need for additional liquidity by the reduction of
expenses, and the Executive is willing to assist the Company in dealing with
short-term liquidity issues by agreeing to a short-term base salary adjustment
agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties here to agree as
follows:


 


1.             The
Executive agrees that the Executive’s base salary, for the period commencing March 2,
2009, and ending as of June 26, 2009, may be temporarily adjusted by
reducing the Executive’s per-pay-period base salary from $                    
to $          
    (the “Adjustment Amount”).


 


2.             For
the period beginning July 1, 2009, the Adjustment Amount shall no longer
apply in a temporary reduction of the Executive’s base salary.


 


3.             The
Company shall pay to the Executive in a lump sum the cumulative amount of the
Adjustment Amount, less applicable taxes, on June 30, 2009.


 


This Agreement executed as of the day and year
first above written.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NAME

  
	
   

  	
  Executive

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  MGP
  INGREDIENTS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:
  CEO, President
34.202 Integrated Baseline Reviews.       (a) 						            When an EVMS is required, the Government will conduct an Integrated Baseline Review (IBR).                                          (b) 						            The purpose of the IBR is to verify the technical content and the realism of the related performance budgets, resources, and schedules. It should provide a mutual understanding of the inherent risks in offerors’/ contractors’ performance plans and the underlying management control systems, and it should formulate a plan to handle these risks.                                          (c) 						            The IBR is a joint assessment by the offeror or contractor, and the Government, of the-                                                         (1) 								                Ability of the project’s technical plan to achieve the objectives of the scope of work;                                                            (2) 								                Adequacy of the time allocated for performing the defined tasks to successfully achieve the project schedule objectives;                                                            (3) 								                Ability of the Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) to successfully execute the project and attain cost objectives, recognizing the relationship between budget resources, funding, schedule, and scope of work;                                                            (4) 								                Availability of personnel, facilities, and equipment when required, to perform the defined tasks needed to execute the program successfully; and                                                            (5) 								                The degree to which the management process provides effective and integrated technical/schedule/cost planning and baseline control.                                                                             (d) 						            The timing and conduct of the IBR shall be in accordance with agency procedures. If a pre-award IBR will be conducted, the solicitation must include the procedures for conducting the IBR and address whether offerors will be reimbursed for the associated costs. If permitted, reimbursement of offerors’ pre-award IBR costs is governed by the provisions of FAR part  31.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 34.2 - Earned Value Management System
#### § 51.22 Disposition of samples.

If it is necessary to take samples of the product to the inspection office for further examination, the inspector, after completion of inspection of such samples shall dispose of them or any usable portion as follows: (a) Ascertain from the applicant if the owner wants the samples returned to him at his expense, (b) if he does not want them returned at his expense, give them to a nonsectarian charitable organization or, (c) if they have a substantial monetary value, sell them and remit the proceeds to the Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, or if applicable, to the cooperating State Agency. Such proceeds shall be deposited to the credit of the Inspection Trust Fund, Federal or cooperating agency, whichever is applicable.
#### Elias Disney *et al. v.*The City of Chicago.

*Opinion filed December 18,*1899

Rehearing *denied February 8, 1900.*

Appeals and *errors*— writ *of error must be brought within five years.*Under section 85 of the Practice act a writ of error cannot be brought after five years from the rendition of the judgment.

Writ op Error to the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Frank Scales, Judge, presiding.

George W. Wilbur, for plaintiffs in error.

Per Curiam:

This writ of error was sued out September 21, 1899, to reverse a judgment of the county court rendered September 13, 1893, confirming a special assessment levied to.pay the cost of a local improvement in Chicago. Section 85 of the Practice act provides that a writ of error shall not be brought after the expiration of five years from the rendition of the judgment complained of. As more than five years had elapsed when this writ was sued out it must be dismissed.

*Writ dismissed.*
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned in the capacity indicated hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
January 3, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Carter's, Inc. and The William Carter Company.

Date: March 19, 2004

/s/FREDERICK J. ROWAN, IIFrederick J. Rowan, II
Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 19, 2004

/s/MICHAEL D. CASEYMichael D. Casey
Chief Financial Officer


79

---

QuickLinks