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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            44,734
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                       67,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 172,998
<PP&E>                                           424,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                   126,422
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   516,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             83,667
<BONDS>                                          271,033
<COMMON>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     516,117
<SALES>                                          145,716
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 145,716
<CGS>                                            105,752
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    137,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (3,132)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (1,450)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (1,682)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,682)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
#### ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM’N *v.*W. D. PHILLIPS, Jr. et ux

5-5068

447 S. W. 2d 148

Opinion delivered November 24, 1969

*Thomas R. Keys, Virginia Tackett*and *Hubert Graves,*for appellant.

*J. Marvin Holman,*for appellees.

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice.

This is a highway condemnation case. The Arkansas State Highway Commission, appellant herein, condemned 11.11 acres needed for the construction of Interstate Highway No. 40 in Johnson County, Arkansas, the property condemned belonging to W. D. Phillips, Jr., and Wanda Phillips, his *682wife, appellees herein. On hearing, Mr. Phillips testified that the total damages to his property amounted to $12,500.00. H. C. Yarbrough, a witness for appellees, testified that damages, in his opinion, amounted to $11,-720.00. Dee Evans, a real estate dealer of Johnson County, listed damages as $10,691.00. The jury returned a verdict for $9,000.00, and from the judgment so entered, appellant brings this appeal.

For reversal, two points are asserted: First, that the court erred in refusing to strike the testimony of H. C. Yarbrough as to the value of the property remaining after the taking, on the grounds that he had not seen the right-of-way maps or construction plans prior to testifying. The same alleged reversible error is also asserted with reference to the testimony of Dee Evans.

We do not agree with these contentions. In the first place, the point listed by appellant as to Yarbrough’s testimony, does not conform to the motion that was actually made. The motion made was as follows:

> “We would like to move to strike this man’s testimony. It is obvious he doesn’t know what was out there when he looked at the after value, neither did he know as to the control of access and what was there after the taking.”

We nave stated on numerous occasions that if any part of the witness’s testimony is admissible, it is improper to strike all of his evidence. As stated in *Arkansas Highway Commission*v. *Wilmans,*236 Ark. 945, 370 S. W. 2d 802:

> “A motion to exclude all the testimony of a witness is properly overruled if a part of it is competent.”

That holding is applicable here. Not only that, but Yarbrough’s testimony makes clear that he had gone *683upon the property and observed and examined the construction. As to Evans, this witness testified that he did look at the construction plans for Interstate 40, but added; “I don’t think that I would have to study them too much.” His overall testimony clearly indicates that he did view the maps and plans. We find no error.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Gehl
Company's consolidated balance sheet at September 28, 1996 and consolidated
statements of income for the nine month period ended September 28, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                            5205
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    71882
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      16238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 94509
<PP&E>                                           55760
<DEPRECIATION>                                   35118
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  127485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            33045
<BONDS>                                          30119<F2>
<COMMON>                                           615
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       62040
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    127485
<SALES>                                         124189 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                124189
<CGS>                                            87569
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    87569
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9474
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2024
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               7450
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7450
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F3>
<FN>
<F1>Company presents receivables on a net basis in compliance with Article 10
of Regulation S-X.
<F2>Includes all non-current portion of debt obligations
<F3>Not reported
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
1



# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 02

- 220 V

Filed: August 20 , 2015

( Not to be Published )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

JOSE VALLE and ANDREA VALLE, *

on behalf of their minor child, * Decision on Interim Attorneys’

J.V., a minor, * Fees and Costs

*

Petitioner s

, *

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION AWARDING INTERIM ATTORNEY S’ FEES AND COSTS

HASTINGS, Special Master

.

On March 20, 2002 , P etitioner s filed a Petition f or Vaccine Compensation in the National

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”), 1 alleging that J.V. was injured by a

vaccine or vaccines listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. See § 14. On April 16, 2015, the parties

filed a joint stipulation concerning interim attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this matter

. The

parties’ stipulation requests a total payment of $24,0 00.00 , representing attorneys’ fees and costs.

Re spondent doe s not obj ect to an award of this amount.

I find that an award of interim attorneys’ fees and costs is appropriate in this case.

Interim attorneys’ fees and costs are explicitly authorized by the binding precedent of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Avera v. HHS , 515 F.3d. 1343; S haw v. HHS

, 609 F.3d 1372, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“the Vaccine Act permits [an] award of interim fees and

costs”); Cloer v. HHS , 675 F.3d 1358, 1361

- 62 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Congress made clear that

1 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100

Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter,

individual section references w ill be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.2

denying interim attorneys’ fees under the Vaccine Act is contrary to an underlying purpose of the

Vaccine Act.”). S ee also Vaccine Rule 13(b).

The request for interim attorneys’ fees and costs is hereby granted. I find that the

petition was brought i n good faith and upon a reasonable basis

, and the amount s requested are

reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award the following attorneys’ fees and costs

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(b) and (e)(1):

• a lump sum of $24,0 00.00 , in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner s

and P etit i oners’ counsel, Edward Kraus , on account of services performed

by counsel’s law firm.

In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of the

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in

accordance herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master

2 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. See

Vaccine Rule 11(a).
39680.

#### RICHARDSON v. THE STATE.

Decided September 18, 1962.

*Asa D. Kelley, Jr., Smith, Gardner, Kelley •& Wiggins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Maston O’Neal, Solicitor General,*contra.

Frankum, Judge.

By five separate indictments the defendant was accused of five separate felonies. The cases were consolidated for trial. The jury returned separate verdicts. The defendant was acquitted on three of the indictments. On the other two> indictments he was convicted and separate sentences were imposed. By one bill of exceptions the defendant seeks a review of both convictions. There is no authority of law for such procedure, and under the authority of *Dempsey v. State,*103 Ga. App. 354 (119 SE2d 298), and cases therein cited, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ of error.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
| (1)Title of Class | ​ | ​ | (2)AmountAuthorized | ​ | ​     | (3)Amount HeldbyUs or forOur Account | ​ | ​ | (4)AmountOutstandingExclusive ofAmounts ShownUnder(3) | ​ |
|-------------------|---------|---------|---------------------|---------|-------------|--------------------------------------|---------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------|---------|
| Common stock      | ​ | ​ | ​             | ​ | 100,000,000 | ​                              | ​ | ​ | ​                                               | ​ | — | ​ | ​ | ​ | ​ | ​ | 25,811,214 | ​ | ​ |

----

----

----

----

----

----
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

** **

Reference is herebymade to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1,2015, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC,as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor, Wilmington Trust,National Association, as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,as Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent andCustodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates Series2015-C27 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section13.9 of the Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2019.

 

 

/s/ Leslie Hayton

Leslie Hayton 

Managing Director 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
§ 20.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct. ( a ) *In general.* A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of estate tax under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) of the Code in the manner stated in § 1.6694-3 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78451, Dec. 22, 2008]
EX-10.8.1



 





EXHIBIT
10.8.1




AMENDMENT TO THE

SUPPLEMENTAL DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN




     This document (this “Amendment”) is an amendment to the Supplemental Executive Defined
Contribution Plan (the “Plan”) of Ferro Corporation (the “Company”) that was adopted effective
January 1, 1996.



Background





	A.	 	The Plan currently provides a Supplemental Basic Pension Contribution to each Participant in
Salary Grade 22 or higher who received a Basic Pension Contribution under the Ferro SSOP
during the Plan Year.






	B.	 	The Company desires to change, effective January 1, 2006, the pay grade eligibility from
Salary Grade 22 to Salary Grade 25 or higher.






	C.	 	Article IX of the Plan permits the Company to amend the Plan, provided that the amendment
does not adversely affect the rights of Participants, and no Participant has yet earned the
right to a Supplemental Basic Pension Contribution for the Plan Year beginning January 1,
2006.





Amendment




     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, pursuant to the provisions of Article IX of
the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended effective January 1, 2006, as follows:




	1.	 	Section 4.3 of the Plan (as it pertains to post-2004 deferrals) is amended by the addition of
two new sentences at the end thereof to read as follows:





“The prior provisions of this Section notwithstanding, effective January 1, 2006,
a Participant will be eligible for a Supplemental Basic Pension Contribution only
if the Participant received a Basic Pension Contribution under the Ferro SSOP
during the Plan Year and either:




	 	(A)	 	Is in Salary Grade 25 or higher on the last day of the Plan Year, or
	 
	 	(B)	 	Is a grandfathered Participant in Salary Grade 22 or higher on the
last day of the Plan Year.





For purposes of this Section, the term ‘grandfathered Participant’ means a
Participant who became an employee of a Ferro Group Company on or after July 1,
2003 and before January 1, 2006 at a Salary Grade of 22 or higher.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed as of the 20th day of
December, 2006.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	FERRO CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/    James F. Kirsch
 	 
	 	 	James F. Kirsch 	 
	 	 	Chairman, President &


Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit32.2**

**Certification of the Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kaiser Group Holdings,Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Nicholas Burakow, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the bestof my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| August 11, 2006 | /s/ Nicholas Burakow     |
|-----------------|--------------------------|
|            | Nicholas Burakow, Ph.D., |
|            | Chief Financial Officer  |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         668,988
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,074,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,621,152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,070,932
<PP&E>                                       1,476,870
<DEPRECIATION>                                 752,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,267,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,760,257
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,460,274
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,516,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,267,120
<SALES>                                      6,029,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,029,381
<CGS>                                        5,883,053
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,883,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,993,466
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             127,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,742,926)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,742,926)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,742,946)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification**I, William J. Pasenelli, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer ofTri-County Financial Corporation, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tri-County Financial Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 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 ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, 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 overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board or directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date: August 12, 2005 /s/ William J. Pasenelli     William J. Pasenelli
§ 20.7701-2 Definitions; spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, marriage. ( a ) *In general.* For the definition of the terms spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, and marriage, see § 301.7701-18 of this chapter.
( b ) *Applicability date.* The rules of this section apply to taxable years ending on or after September 2, 2016.
[T.D. 9785, 81 FR 60616, Sept. 2, 2016]
## jfourtlj**Court of** **gntomo, April** **29,2013 No.** **04-13-00199-CR Jorge** **MARTINEZ, Appellant** **v. The** **STATE of** **Texas, Appellee** **From the** **175th Judicial** **District Court,** **Bexar County,** **Texas Trial** **Court No.** **2013CR1083 Honorable** **Mary D.** **Roman, Judge** **Presiding ORDER** **On April** **22, 2013,** **the court** **reporter in** **this case** **filed notice** **of late** **record stating** **that appellant** **is not** **entitled to** **appeal without** **paying the** **fee for** **the reporter's** **record, and** **appellant**

### has**failed to pay** **the fee for** **the reporter's** **record or make** **arrangements to** **pay the** **fee for** **the reporter's** **record. The** **court reporter's** **notice of** **late record** **is NOTED.** **Furthermore, on** **April 5,** **2013, we** **issued an** **order warning** **appellant that** **this appeal** **will be** **dismissed pursuant** **to Texas** **Rule of** **Appellate Procedure** **25.2(d), unless** **trial court** 

### certification**showing that** **appellant has** **the right** **to appeal** **is made** **part of** **the appellate** **record by** **May 6,2013.** **The April** **5, 2013,** **order suspends** **all appellate** **deadlines until** **further order** **of this** **court. Karen** **Angelini, JustioJ/** **REOF, have** **hereunto set** **my/iand and** **afjnxed the** **seal of** **the said** **il, 2013.** 

### Kefth**E. Hottle** **Clerk of** **Court**