alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STEPHENS *v.*THE STATE.

Having counterfeit notes — description—gist of the offence — stealing bank notes — discharge from the penitentiary.

Where written instruments enter into the gist of the offence, as in forgery, sending threatening letters, the having blank counterfeit notes with intent to fill up and pass, &c. they should be set out in the indictment.

They need not be set out on a charge for stealing them.

Error to the Hamilton county Court of Common Pleas.

By the Court.

The Court in Bank has already decided upon this record, as to another defendant, *5 O. R.*269. When written instruments enter into the gist of the offence, as in forgery, libel, sending threatening letters, &c. they must he set out. But this will not hold in cases of larceny of notes; because the offence is the act of stealing, and the contents of the note have no connection with the crime; *Arch. C. PI.*19; 1 *East. P. C.*1123; 6 *T. R.*162. The indictment in this case charges the defendant with having 200 counterfeit notes in possession, not filled up, with intention to fill them up, in imitation of genuine notes of the Bank of the United States. The notes are not set out. In this class of cases, the instrument should be set out, that the court may judge whether they are such, that the forging and circulating them constitute the crime of forgery.

The judgment is reversed, and the prisoner ordered to be discharged from the penitentiary. 29 O. *L.*160.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000902277
<NAME>                        Delta and Pine Land Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,552
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  148,401
<ALLOWANCES>                                       475
<INVENTORY>                                     47,727
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               217,543
<PP&E>                                          96,944
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 295,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          172,040
<BONDS>                                         20,819
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        107
<COMMON>                                         3,866
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   295,758
<SALES>                                        260,465
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               260,465
<CGS>                                          185,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,427
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,573
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,477
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 315 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 315

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove the requirement of 
a mandatory beginning date for distributions from individual retirement 
                                 plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2003

  Mr. Saxton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove the requirement of 
a mandatory beginning date for distributions from individual retirement 
                                 plans.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENT OF MANDATORY BEGINNING DATE FOR 
              DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (6) of section 408(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to individual retirement account) and 
paragraph (3) of section 408(b) of such Code (relating to individual 
retirement annuity) are each amended by inserting ``(other than 
subparagraph (A) thereof)'' after ``section 401(a)(9)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 200 (Monday, October 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 53523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25057]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11893 and <greek-i>11894]


American Samoa Disaster Number AS-00003

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of American Samoa (FEMA-1859-DR), dated 
09/29/2009.
    Incident: Earthquake, tsunami, and flooding.
    Incident Period: 09/29/2009 and continuing through 10/06/2009.

DATES: Effective Date: 10/06/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/30/2009.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/29/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of American Samoa, dated 09/29/2009 is hereby 
amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 
09/29/2009 and continuing through 10/06/2009.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Roger B. Garland,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-25057 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2011156EN.01001001.xml

| 26.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/10

---

No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement

2011/C 156/08

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 15 December 2010 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 68550 |
| Decision number | : | 487/10/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Name of the beneficiary | : | Kvalheim Kraft DA |
| Type of measure | : | Individual aid under the Energy Fund scheme, subject to a detailed assessment under the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection |
| Scheme | : | The Energy Fund scheme approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority with Decision No 125/06/COL on 3 May 2006 |
| Objective | : | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | : | Grant |
| Aid amount | : | NOK 92,8 million |
| Economic sectors | : | Electricity production |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Enova SF |
| Professor Borchsgt. 2 |
| 7030 Trondheim |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

15 December 2010

Case number

:

68550

Decision number

:

487/10/COL

EFTA State

:

Norway

Name of the beneficiary

:

Kvalheim Kraft DA

Type of measure

:

Individual aid under the Energy Fund scheme, subject to a detailed assessment under the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection

Scheme

:

The Energy Fund scheme approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority with Decision No 125/06/COL on 3 May 2006

Objective

:

Environmental protection

Form of aid

:

Grant

Aid amount

:

NOK 92,8 million

Economic sectors

:

Electricity production

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Enova SF

Professor Borchsgt. 2

7030 Trondheim

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
* The Honorable James B. Loken became Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2003. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3243

___________ Deborah J. Blake, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner * [UNPUBLISHED] of Social Security, * * Defendant - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 14, 2003 Filed: June 9, 2003

___________ Before LOKEN, * RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Deborah Blake applied for Social Security disability and supplemental security income benefits, alleging that she became disabled on September 27, 1998, following a January 1998 motor vehicle accident. After an evidentiary hearing, the administrative law judge found that Ms. Blake suffers from osteoarthrosis and back disorders which are severe but not listed impairments; that she cannot perform her1 The HONORABLE DEAN WHIPPLE, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. -2- past relevant work as institutional cook, poultry lineworker, housekeeper, and laundry worker; but that she has the residual functional capacity to perform a significant range of sedentary work, such as addresser and touch up screener, and is therefore not disabled. Ms. Blake petitioned for judicial review of this adverse final agency action. The district court 1 affirmed, concluding that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the administrative record as a whole. On appeal, Ms. Blake argues that the ALJ’s finding regarding her residual functional capacity -- that she can “lift a maximum of 10 pounds; sit or stand for 1 hour; walk 30 minutes; is limited in overhead reaching; is slightly limited in reaching outward; should only occasionally climb, balance, kneel, stoop, or crawl; and should avoid hazardous equipment” -- is unacceptably vague in that it fails to quantify any precise limitation, is incomplete in that it fails to address all her limitations, and fails to cite supporting record evidence. However, after careful review of the administrative record, we agree with the Commissioner that any weakness in the ALJ’s description of Ms. Blake’s residual functional capacity is merely an “arguable deficiency in opinion-writing” that “had no practical effect on the outcome of the case.” Brown v. Chater , 87 F.3d 963, 966 (8th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons stated in the court’s order dated June 25, 2002. See8th Cir. Rule 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 390.280 When do the definitions in this subpart apply?

The definitions in this subpart apply throughout parts 390 and 391, unless another definition is specifically provided.
output_FacilityList

FacilityID met_station rural_urban max_dist model_dist radials circles overlap_distacute hours elev multiplier

01077NEI8517 50000 Y 1 1

40101NEIOK1015305 50000 Y 1 1

45083NEI41474 50000 Y 1 1

47125NEITNRCC123 50000 Y 1 1

48049NEI13131 50000 Y 1 1

48113NEI12943 50000 Y 1 1

48141NEI41683 50000 Y 1 1

55117NEIWI1179993 50000 Y 1 1

Page 1
output_FacilityList

ring1 dep depl phase pdep pdepl vdep vdepl All_rcpts user_rcpt bldg_dw urban_pop fastall

Page 2
output_FacilityList

hr_emis

Page 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6569

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ANDRE KEBE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. 

(8:97-cr-00357-DKC-1) 

Submitted: June 12, 2009 Decided: July 7, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Andre Kebe, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Andre Kebe appeals the district court’s orders denying 

Kebe’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion and his motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Kebe, No. 8:97-cr00357-DKC-1 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2009). The motion for appointment 

of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

734.2 CA 11-00925 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND GORSKI, JJ.

BRIAN S. DERMODY AND GINA V. DERMODY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V ORDER

DARRYL D. TILTON, SANDRA J. TILTON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. (APPEAL NO. 3.)

OHL & ALEXSON, HONEOYE (WAYNE I. OHL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

THE BROCKLEBANK FIRM, CANANDAIGUA (DEREK G. BROCKLEBANK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (William F. Kocher, A.J.), dated August 24, 2010. The decision concluded that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against defendants Darryl D. Tilton and Sandra J. Tilton should be granted.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Pecora v Lawrence , 28 AD3d 1136, 1137)

.

Entered: June 17, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
§ 703.16 Prohibited investments. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Stripped mortgage backed securities (SMBS).* A Federal credit union may not invest in SMBS or securities that represent interests in SMBS except as described in paragraphs (1) and (3) below. ( 1 ) A Federal credit union may invest in and hold exchangeable collateralized mortgage obligations (exchangeable CMOs) representing beneficial ownership interests in one or more interest-only classes of a CMO (IO CMOs) or principal-only classes of a CMO (PO CMOs), but only if: ( i ) At the time of purchase, the ratio of the market price to the remaining principal balance is between .8 and 1.2, meaning that the discount or premium of the market price to par must be less than 20 points;
( ii ) The offering circular or other official information available at the time of purchase indicates that the notional principal on each underlying IO CMO should decline at the same rate as the principal on one or more of the underlying non-IO CMOs, and that the principal on each underlying PO CMO should decline at the same rate as the principal, or notional principal, on one or more of the underlying non-PO CMOs; and
( iii ) The credit union staff has the expertise dealing with exchangeable CMOs to apply the conditions in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this section.
( 2 ) A Federal credit union that invests in an exchangeable CMO may exercise the exchange option only if all of the underlying CMOs are permissible investments for that credit union.
( 3 ) A Federal credit union may accept an exchangeable CMO representing beneficial ownership interests in one or more IO CMOs or PO CMOs as an asset associated with an investment repurchase transaction or as collateral in a securities lending transaction. When the exchangeable CMO is associated with one of these two transactions, it need not conform to the conditions in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
( c ) *Other prohibited investments.* A Federal credit union may not purchase residual interests in collateralized mortgage obligations, real estate mortgage investment conduits, or small business related securities.
[68 FR 32960, June 3, 2003, as amended at 69 FR 39832, July 1, 2004; 77 FR 31991, May 31, 2012; 79 FR 5241, Jan. 31, 2014; 86 FR 72818, Dec. 23, 2021]
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, William T. Schleyer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Adelphia Communications Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich 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 in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which 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 effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby 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 fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of 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 toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: November 14, 2006 | /s/ William T. Schleyer              |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                    | William T. Schleyer                  |
|                    | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.03


     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO RESTRICTED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT (75,000 SHARES)


         WHEREAS, on January 24, 2000, Intuit Inc. (the "Company") and Stephen
M. Bennett ("Purchaser") entered into a Restricted Stock Purchase Agreement (the
"Agreement") with respect to 75,000 shares of common stock of the Company (the
"Shares"); and

         WHEREAS, on January 17, 2001 the Compensation Committee of the
Company's Board of Directors amended the vesting schedule under the Agreement;

         RESOLVED, that Section 5.2 of the Stock Purchase Agreement which sets
for the vesting schedule is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read
as follows:

         5.2 Vesting Schedule. The Shares will vest over a ten-year period. On
the Effective Date all of the Shares will be Unvested Shares. Provided Purchaser
remains continuously employed with the Company through the applicable vesting
date: (a) 7,500 shares will vest on the first trading day on or following
January 24, 2001 that Purchaser would be permitted to sell the Company's common
stock in compliance with the Company's Insider Trading Policy and applicable
insider trading laws, but in no event later than the last trading day of the
following March (the "First Permitted Trading Date"); (b) the next 60,000 shares
shall vest over the next eight years as to 7,500 shares on the First Permitted
Trading Date on or after each of January 24, 2002 through 2009, respectively;
and (c) the remaining 7,500 shares shall vest on January 24, 2010. In the event
Purchaser's employment with the Company is terminated due to "INVOLUNTARY
TERMINATION," "TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE" or "TERMINATION FOR DEATH OR
DISABILITY," each as defined in the Employment Agreement, the vesting of the
Shares will accelerate as set forth in Section 5.3 below. In the event
Purchaser's employment with the Company is terminated due to "VOLUNTARY
TERMINATION" or "TERMINATION FOR CAUSE," the Shares will cease vesting on the
date Purchaser's employment with the Company terminates, and the Company or its
assignee(s) will have a Repurchase Option as to all Unvested Shares on such
date. Hereinafter the date on which Purchaser's employment with the Company ends
shall be referred to as the "TERMINATION DATE."

         This Amendment No. 1 is entered into effective as of January 17, 2001.

INTUIT INC.                             PURCHASER

By:  /s/ Greg Santora                   /s/ Stephen M. Bennett
---------------------------             -----------------------
Greg Santora                            Stephen M. Bennett
Chief Financial Officer