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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-02-2000
<CASH>                                             734
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,813
<ALLOWANCES>                                       172
<INVENTORY>                                     22,232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,848
<PP&E>                                          12,683
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,619
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,615
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,733
<SALES>                                         79,614
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,614
<CGS>                                           61,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,039
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,196
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,092
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,880)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (329)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,551)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,126
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,575
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31602-31603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12482]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree in Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Cost Recovery 
Action

    In accordance with the Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a Consent Decree in United States v. Cytec 
Industries, Inc., Ford Motor Company, and SPS Technologies, Inc., Civil 
Action No. 00-CV-2248 was lodged with the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 2, 2000. This Consent 
Decree resolves certain claims of the United States against Cytec 
Industries, Inc., Ford Motor Company, and SPS Technologies (``Settling 
Defendants'') under Sections 106 and 107(a) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), 42 
U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a), for performance of Operable Unit 1 response 
action and for Operable Unit 1 future response costs at the Boarhead 
Farms Superfund Site located in Bridgeton Township, Pennsylvania. The 
Consent Decree requires the Settling Defendants to perform all Operable 
Unit 1 activities (as defined in the Decree) and to pay all Future 
Response Costs relating to Operable Unit 1 activities at the Boarhead 
Farms Superfund Site.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments on the 
proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Please address comments to the Assistant 
Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 
DC 20044 and refer to United States v. Cytec Industries, Inc., Ford 
Motor Company, and SPS Technologies, Inc., DOJ #90-11-2-06036.
    Copies of the proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office 
of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 615 
Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106 and at EPA Region III, 1650 
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the proposed Consent 
Decree may be obtained by mail from the U.S. Department of Justice, 
Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC

[[Page 31603]]

20044-7611. When requesting a copy of the proposed Consent Decree, 
please enclose a check to cover the twenty-five cents per page 
reproduction costs payable to the ``Consent Decree Library'' in the 
amount of $21.00 (for Decree without appendices) or $50.00 (for Decree 
with appendices), and please reference United States v. Cytec 
Industries, Inc., Ford Motor Company, and SPS Technologies, Inc., DOJ 
No. 90-11-2-06036.

Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 00-12482 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
§ 1952.20 New Mexico. ( a ) The New Mexico State plan received initial approval on December 10, 1975.
( b ) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with New Mexico.
( c ) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in *AFL-CIO* v. *Marshall,* compliance staffing levels (“benchmarks”) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required for each State operating an approved State plan. In May 1992, New Mexico completed, in conjunction with OSHA, a reassessment of the staffing levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised benchmarks of 7 safety and 3 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on August 11, 1994.
( d ) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit *http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/new_mexico.html .*
§ 1988.114 District court jurisdiction of retaliation complaints. ( a ) If the Secretary has not issued a final decision with 210 days of the filing of the complaint, and there is no showing that there has been delay due to the bad faith of the complainant, the complainant may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United States, which will have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount in controversy. At the request of either party, the action shall be tried by the court with a jury.
( b ) A proceeding under paragraph (a) of this section shall be governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in § 1988.109.
( c ) Within seven days after filing a complaint in federal court, a complainant must file with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where the proceeding is pending, a copy of the file-stamped complaint. A copy of the complaint also must be served on the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12441]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Board of Overseers

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 
2, notice is hereby given that there will be a meeting of the Board of 
Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award on Thursday, 
June 8, 2000. The Board of Overseers is composed of eleven members 
prominent in the field of quality management and appointed by the 
Secretary of Commerce, assembled to advise the Secretary of Commerce on 
the conduct of the Baldrige Award. The purpose of this meeting is to 
discuss and review information received from the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology with the members of the Judges Panel of the 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The agenda will include: 
Review Roles/Responsibilities of Judges and Overseers; Health Care and 
Education Update; 2000 Baldrige Criteria Changes and Future Criteria 
Evolution; New Marketing Documents; Discussion of Program Issues, and 
Key Issues from the June 7 Judges' Meeting.

DATES: The meeting will convene June 8, 2000, at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn 
at 3:00 p.m. on June 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Administration Building Tenth Floor 
Conference Room, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Harry Hertz, Director, National 
Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number (301) 975-2361.

    Dated: May 10, 2000.
Raymond G. Kammer,
Director.
[FR Doc. 00-12441 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-M
#### In the Matter of the Will of Emma T. Gary, Deceased. Elma L. Quirin, as Ancillary Executrix of Eliza J. Brundage, Deceased, Appellant; Lewis Nixon, Sr., et al., as Executors of Emma T. Gary, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 4, 1937;

decided January 12, 1937.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 272 N. Y. 635.)
§ 1987.100 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part sets forth the procedures for, and interpretations of, section 402 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), Public Law 111-353, 124 Stat. 3885, which was signed into law on January 4, 2011. Section 402 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C), 21 U.S.C. 301 *et seq.,* by adding new section 1012. *See* 21 U.S.C. 399d. Section 1012 of the FD&C provides protection for an employee from retaliation because the employee has engaged in protected activity pertaining to a violation or alleged violation of the FD&C, or any order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under the FD&C.
( b ) This part establishes procedures under section 1012 of the FD&C for the expeditious handling of retaliation complaints filed by employees, or by persons acting on their behalf. The rules in this part, together with those codified at 29 CFR part 18, set forth the procedures under section 1012 of the FD&C for submission of complaints, investigations, issuance of findings and preliminary orders, objections to findings and orders, litigation before administrative law judges, post-hearing administrative review, and withdrawals and settlements. In addition, the rules in this part provide the Secretary's interpretations on certain statutory issues.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14397

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-60003-JIC

EDWARD BUTLER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, 

SCOTT HAGEMANN, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 19, 2016)

Case: 15-14397 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Before HULL, MARTIN, and BALDOCK,* Circuit Judges.

HULL, Circuit Judge: 

Plaintiff Edward Butler appeals from the district court’s order granting 

Defendant Scott Hagemann’s motion for summary judgment. Butler brought an 

action alleging malicious prosecution under federal and state law,1 relying in part 

on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court determined that Butler’s malicious 

prosecution claims failed because Hagemann had probable cause to arrest Butler 

on suspicion of armed robbery. The district court entered final judgment in favor 

of Hagemann.

After review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

 * Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting 

by designation.

1 Butler brought other claims that were dismissed before Defendant Hagemann’s motion 

for summary judgment, but those claims are not at issue in this appeal.

Case: 15-14397 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of our reports dated February 25, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of The Lamson & Sessions Co., The
Lamson & Sessions Co. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of The Lamson & Sessions Co., included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended January 1, 2005:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Registration
   Number                                       Description
-------------  -----------------------------------------------------------------
<S>         <C>
333-93251      The Lamson & Sessions Co. Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan
033-62443      Form S-8 Registration Statement


333-12585      The Lamson & Sessions Co. Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-
               Employee Directors Form S-8 Registration Statement


333-46953      The Lamson & Sessions Co. Deferred Savings Plan Form S-8 Registration
               Statement


333-61911      The Lamson & Sessions Co. 1998 Incentive Equity Plan Form S-8
333-63280      Registration Statement
333-51330
333-118384


333-65795      The Lamson & Sessions Co. 1988 Incentive Equity Performance Plan
               Form S-3 Registration Statement

</TABLE>
                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
March 1, 2005
#### BELLEGUE v FIG TREE CORPORATION d/b/a FISHERMAN’S WHARF

Case No. 87-171-SP-12-C

County Court, Volusia County

February 6, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

John Bellegue, pro se.

Sami Osta, pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

NORTON JOSEPHSON, County Judge.

IT APPEARING to the Court that the Sheriffs return to service of *58process indicates that the defendant was served with a Statement of Claim in the following manner:

> “Mr. Osta refused to answer the door, papers dropped on door sill, I could see him through the door.”

Section 48.031 Florida Statutes requires the process server, among other requirements to “inform the person (to be served) of their contents.”

From the face of the return in this case there is no indication that the process server informed the defendant of the contents of the Statement of Claim nor is it clear whether the process server knew that the person he saw through the door was in fact Mr. Osta, the defendant.

The real purpose of the service of summons is to give proper notice to the defendant in the case that he is answerable to the claim of plaintiff. The major purpose of the constitutional provision which guarantees due process is to. make certain that when a person is sued ’ he has notice of the suit and an opportunity to defend.

There must be some minimum exchange of communication between the defendant and the process server.

The fact in this case are distinguishable from those in *Haney v. Olin Corporation, 245*So.2d 671 and *Liberman v. COmmercial National Bank of Broward County,*256 So.2d 63 and went beyond the outer limits of a valid service of process.

Further, it appearing that the defendant is a corporation and the return of service of process indicates that service was made on an individual rather than upon an officer, director or agent of said corporation or of the defendant corporation, said return is also insufficient as a matter of law, it is therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the service of process, be and the same is, hereby quashed.

DONE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED in Chambers at the County Courthouse Annex, 125 E. Orange Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida this 6th day of February, 1987.
#### ALLAN E. GOODHUE v. UNITED STATES

[84 C. Cls. 271; 301 U. S. 686]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court April 26, 1937.
# EUR-Lex - 31999R0494 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R0494

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/1999 of 5 March 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs **

*
Official Journal L 059 , 06/03/1999 P. 0017 - 0017 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 494/1999 of 5 March 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1587/96 (2), and in particular Articles 6, 12(3) and 28 thereof,

Whereas Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 124/1999 (4), lays down the time limit for processing and incorporating into final products the products referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation; whereas the current length of that time limit is likely to encourage operations of a speculative nature; whereas the time limit should therefore be reduced;

Whereas the Management Committee for milk and milk products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97, 'five months` is replaced by 'four months`.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 March 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13.

(2) OJ L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 350, 20. 12. 1997, p. 3.

(4) OJ L 13, 21. 1. 1999, p. 19.
#### Cora T. Osterhout *vs.*Edwin B. Latham et al.

* Third Judicial District, New Haven,

June Term, 1917.

Prentice, C. J., Roraback, Wheeler, Beach and Shomway, Js.

*Swanson*v. *Latham, ante,*p. 87, reaffirmed and followed.

Argued June 12th —

decided July 6th, 1917.

Appeal by the defendants from the finding and *92award of the Compensation Commissioner of the second district in favor of the plaintiff, taken to the Superior Court in Tolland County, from which the cause was transferred by agreement of the parties to the Superior Court in Hartford County, and reserved by that court, *Gager, J.,*upon the finding of the Commissioner and the evidence before him, for the advice of this court.

*Superior Court advised to dismiss the defendants1 appeal.*

*Warren B. Johnson*and *Leonard J. Collins,*for the appellants (defendants).

*William A. King*and *Samuel B. Harvey,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*

 Transferred from first judicial district.

Wheeler, J.

The facts are identical with the companion case, *Swanson*v. *Latham et al.*

The decedent, Osterhout, was an employee of the defendants, and the contract of employment with him was the same as with Swanson. He stood in a dual relation to Latham & Crane. As the owner of the automobile, he was their agent to transport, in his own automobile, Swanson and. the other employees, including himself, from Willimantic to Stafford Springs and back each day, for the sum of ninety cents each day for each employee, including himself. As an employee, his contract of employment during the period of transportation did not differ in any essential from Swanson’s and the other employees. So far as the facts disclose, Osterhout’s case does not differ from Swanson’s.

The Superior Court is advised to render its judgment dismissing the appeal.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J.E.T. an Z.D.T, * From the 446th District Court

children, of Ector County

Trial Court No. E-16-057-PC.

No. 11-18-00350-CV * June 6, 2019

 * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         8,974
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         50
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    38,376
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           0
<LOANS>                                        76,018
<ALLOWANCE>                                    958
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,906
<DEPOSITS>                                     104,773
<SHORT-TERM>                                   15,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1,038
<LONG-TERM>                                    7,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,993
<COMMON>                                       6,544
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,977)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 134,906
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                5,444
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2,046
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               61
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               7,551
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             2,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,724
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          3,827
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  235
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                4,343
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                63
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (87)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.20)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 4.34
<LOANS-NON>                                    362
<LOANS-PAST>                                   11
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                2,673
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               871
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  263
<RECOVERIES>                                   115
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              958
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           849
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        109




</TABLE>