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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains Summary Financial Information extracted from Form 10-Q
dated 9/30/96 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          19,075
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     40,792
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          21,837
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        227,162
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 321,007
<DEPOSITS>                                     282,947
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,843
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                990
<LONG-TERM>                                     12,243
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            37
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 321,007
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,769
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,773
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   111
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,653
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,911
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,239
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,414
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,602
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   7
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,670
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,669
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,669
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,637
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.62
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.52
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,894
<LOANS-PAST>                                     3,682
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,592
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,960
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,893
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,026
<RECOVERIES>                                       227
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,696
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,696
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>not reported on a quarterly basis
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
PGI 225.7003-2 Restrictions.       (a)(i) This restriction applies to the item containing the specialty metal, not just the specialty metal, as was true when the restriction was part of 10 U.S.C. 4862. The previous practice of withholding payment while conditionally accepting noncompliant items is not permissible for—          (A) Contracts entered into on or after November 16, 2006; or          (B) New procurements or out-of-scope changes accomplished on or after November 16, 2006, through the use of bilateral modifications to contracts originally awarded prior to November 16, 2006.          (ii) Consistent with the definition of “component” in the clause at DFARS 252.225-7009, a component is any item supplied to the Government as part of an end item or of another component. Items that are not incorporated into any of the items listed in DFARS 225.7003-2(a) are not components of those items. For example, test equipment, ground support equipment, or shipping containers are not components of the missile system.    **Parent topic:** PGI 225.7003 Restrictions on acquisition of specialty metals.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review K08, F31.                    

*Date:*                         March 2, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 1 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Four Points by Sheraton Washington DC Downtown, 1201 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mary Kelly, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Inst of Dental & Craniofacial Research, NIH 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 672, MSC 4878, Bethesda, MD 20892-4878, 301-594-4809,                         *mary_kelly@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 7486)    
Dated: February 4, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-3208 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
First amendment to the Praxair, Inc. Supplemental Retirement Income Plan A



 Exhibit 10.05b 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 PRAXAIR, INC.

 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN A 
 (EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008) 
 Article III, Section 1(c) of the
Praxair, Inc. Supplemental Retirement Income Plan A (Effective January 1, 2008) is hereby amended by the addition of the following sentence at the end thereof, effective as of January 1, 2010: 
 “Notwithstanding the prior sentence, with respect to benefits that become payable on account of a Traditional-Design Participant’s
termination of employment occurring after December 31, 2009, lump sum payments shall be calculated using a discount rate equal to the average of the 10 year Aaa municipal bond rate as published by Moody’s or a similar rating service for
the months of July through December of the year immediately prior to the year in which such Participant terminated employment.” 
  

			
	PRAXAIR, INC.
		
	By:	 	  

		
	Date:
§ 600.381 Special provisions for Small Business Innovation Research Grants. ( a ) *General.* This section contains provisions applicable to the Small Business Innovation Reserach (SBIR) Program.
( b ) *Provisions Applicable to Phase I SBIR Awards:* Phase I SBIR awards may be made on a fixed obligation basis, subject to the following requirements. ( 1 ) While proposed costs must be analyzed in detail to ensure consistency with applicable cost principles, incurred costs are not subject to review under the standards of cost allowability.
( 2 ) Although detailed budgets are submitted by a recipient and reviewed by DOE for purposes of establishing the amount to be awarded, budget categories are not stipulated in making an award;
( 3 ) Prior approval from the DOE for rebudgeting among categories by the recipient is not required. Prior approval from DOE is required for any variation from the requirement that no more than one-third of Phase I work can be done by subcontractors or consortium partners;
( 4 ) Pre-award expenditure approval is not required;
( 5 ) Payments are to be made in the same manner as other financial assistance (*see* § 600.312), except that, when determined appropriate by the cognizant program official and contracting officer, a lump sum payment may be made. If a lump sum payment is made, the award must contain a condition that requires the recipient to return to DOE amounts remaining unexpended at the end of the project if those amounts exceed $500;
( 6 ) Recipients will certify in writing to the Contracting Officer at the end of the project that the activity was completed or the level of effort was expended. Should the activity or effort not be carried out, the recipeint would be expected to make appropriate reimbursements;
( 7 ) Requirements for periodic reports may be established for each award so long as they are consistent with § 600.341;
( 8 ) Changes in principal investigator or project leader, scope of effort, or institution, require the prior approval of DOE.
( c ) *Provision Applicable to Phase II SBIR Awards.* Phase II SBIR awards may be made for a single budget period of 24 months.
( d ) *Provisions Applicable to Phase I and Phase II SBIR Awards.* ( 1 ) The prior approval of the cognizant DOE Contracting Officer is required before the final budget period of the project period may be extended without additional funds.
( 2 ) A fee or profit may be paid to SBIR recipients.
Exhibit 35.1

 

ANNUAL SERVICER’S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

 

This Compliance Certificateis furnished pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of January 30,2013, by and among Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2013-A, Hyundai Capital America, as seller and servicer (the “Servicer”),Hyundai ABS Funding, LLC (formerly known as Hyundai ABS Funding Corporation), as depositor, and U.S. Bank National Association,as indenture trustee and Item 1123 of Regulation AB. The undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

1)        Iam a duly authorized officer of the Servicer.

 

2)        Areview of the activities of the Servicer from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Relevant Period”) andof the Servicer’s performance under the Agreement during the Relevant Period has been made under my supervision.

 

3)        Basedon such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Relevant Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed thisCompliance Certificate this 18th day of March, 2016.
#### BUSHBY, Respondent, v. BERKELEY, Appellant.

(No. 6548.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 31, 1914.)

Appeal from Judgment on Report of Referee. Action by James C. Bushby against Lancelot M. Berkeley. From a final judgment for the plaintiff, confirming the report of a referee, defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1073. L. M. Berkeley, of New York City, for appellant. Max D. Steuer, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

An examination of the record clearly shows that the defendant is not entitled to an offset in what is termed the Puckhafer item. He refused to recognize the authority of the plaintiff to satisfy that claim, and proceeded to enforce it against the railroad company, recovering a judgment, which

was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals. "Nor is there any basis for an offset in what is known as the Foster No. 2 item. The referee so found, and there is an abundance of evidence to sustain his finding. On an appeal by the plaintiff this court modified the judgment, by allowing him interest on the amount found due from the defendant. Bushby v. Berkeley, 160 App. Div. 916, 145 N. Y. Supp. 1115. The same rule should be applied to the defendant, and he should be allowed interest on $529.09, given to him as an offset in the final judgment. The interest on this sum amounts to $214.28. The judgment appealed from, therefore, should be modified accordingly, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs to either party in this court.
§ 490.305 Acquisitions satisfying the mandate. The following actions within the model year qualify as acquisitions for the purpose of compliance with the requirements of section 490.302 of this part— ( a ) The purchase or lease of an Original Equipment Manufacturer light duty vehicle (regardless of the model year of manufacture) that is an alternative fueled vehicle and that was not previously under the control of the covered person;
( b ) The purchase or lease of an after-market converted light duty vehicle (regardless of the model year of manufacture), that was not previously under the control of the covered person; and
( c ) The conversion of a newly purchased or leased light duty vehicle to operate on alternative fuels within four months after the vehicle is acquired by a covered person; and
( d ) The application of alternative fueled vehicle credits allocated under subpart F of this part.
[61 FR 10653, Mar. 14, 1996, as amended at 79 FR 15903, Mar. 21, 2014]
#### HOYLER, Appellant, v. HOYLER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 27, 1914.)

Action by Charles A. Hoyler against Martha Hoyler.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, without costs. *Held,*that the questions of fraud and impotency were not covered by the pleadings, and should not have been tried against plaintiff’s objection, and that the findings that the plaintiff was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment are contrary to and against the weight of the evidence.

LAMBERT, J., not sitting
§ 603.915 Access to a nonprofit participant's records. A TIA must include for any nonprofit participant the standard access-to-records requirement at: ( a ) 10 CFR 600.242(e), for a participant that is a State or local governmental organization;
( b ) 10 CFR 600.153(e), for a participant that is a nonprofit organization. The same requirement applies to any GOCO or FFRDC, even though nonprofit GOCOs and FFRDCs are exempted from the definition of “recipient” in 10 CFR 600.101.
IV 

House Calendar No. 47 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 304 

[Report No. 109–106] 

Providing for consideration of (H.J. Res. 27) withdrawing the approval of 

the United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade 

Organization. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2005 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of (H.J. Res. 27) withdrawing 

the approval of the United States from the Agreement 

establishing the World Trade Organization. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint reso3 lution (H.J. Res. 27) withdrawing the approval of the 

4 United States from the Agreement establishing the World 

5 Trade Organization. The joint resolution shall be consid6 ered as read. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
2 

HRES 304 RH 

1 two hours equally divided among and controlled by the 

2 chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 

3 on Ways and Means, Representative Paul of Texas, and 

4 Representative Sanders of Vermont or their designees. 

5 Pursuant to section 152 of the Trade Act of 1974 and 

6 section 125 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the 

7 previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

8 joint resolution to final passage without intervening mo9 tion. 

10 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.J. Res. 27 pursu11 ant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

12 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid13 eration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker. 

House Calendar No. 47 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 304 

[Report No. 109–106] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of (H.J. Res. 27) withganization. the Agreement establishing the World Trade Or- drawing the approval of the United States from 

JUNE 7, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          43,853
<SECURITIES>                                   300,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,520
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,083,045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,408,117
<PP&E>                                         261,060
<DEPRECIATION>                                 380,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,530,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,611,766
<BONDS>                                        300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        146
<COMMON>                                       153,631
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,665,065)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,530,830
<SALES>                                        101,708
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,708
<CGS>                                           99,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  436,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,649
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,783
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (334,622)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (339,622)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (339,622)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### Bernard FRANK, John Pareti and Martin Kessler, on behalf of themselves and other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL CITIES COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Capital Cities Media, Inc. and Fairchild Publications, Inc., Defendants.

80 Civ. 2188-CSH.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

March 11, 1981.

Beldock, Levine & Hoffman, New York City, for plaintiffs; Cynthia Rollings, New York City, of counsel.

Hall,. Dickler, Lawler, Kent & Howley, New York City, for defendants; Milford Fenster, Paul Sarno, Robin L. Hirsch, New York City, of counsel.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HAIGHT, District Judge:

Plaintiffs’ motion to reargue the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of January 6, 1981, 88 F.R.D. 674, is granted.

I am persuaded that the earlier opinion overlooked the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(2), which makes a 300-day time limit applicable to this case, where the named plaintiffs concededly commenced New York state proceedings.. The applicability in comparable circumstances of a 300-day period to an ADEA class action was presaged by Judge Newman in *Pandis v. Sikorsky Aircraft,*431 F.Supp. 793, 799 (D.Conn.1977), implemented by Judge Blumenfeld in *Geller v. Markham,*481 F.Supp. 835 (D.Conn.1979), and, indeed, suggested by the present defendants in their original papers. Nothing in *Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans,*441 U.S. 750, 99 S.Ct. 2066, 60 L.Ed.2d 609 (1979), which construes the ADEA to require an individual to pursue his state remedies before invoking a federal remedy, necessitates a different result.

It is true, as defendants stress, that *Geller v. Markham*involved an employer whose activities were limited to one state, whereas Fairchild maintains branches in states which do not provide comparable remedies. But that does not require that the entire class be limited to the 180-day period, since that would disenfranchise class members entitled to be included under the rationale of *Pandis*and *Geller.*It will be sufficient to determine, when and if employees from such states elect to “opt in,” whether their individual claims are barred. The notice will be geared to the 300-day period.

I reject plaintiffs’ suggestion that a different limitations period be substituted for those specifically provided in § 626(d).

The Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of January 6, 1981 is amended as to ■ provide a cut-off date for notice purposes of December 1, 1978. Plaintiffs’ motion for reargument is granted to that extent, and otherwise denied.

It is So Ordered.
#### VSF Coalition, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Nicholas Scoppetta et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 18, 2007;

decided September 18, 2007

Reported below, 36 AD3d 690.

*919Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against the Uniformed Firefighters Association, dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]); motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.