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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Keystone
Consolidated Industries, Inc.'s consolidated financial statements for the year
ended December 31, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                       469
<INVENTORY>                                     36,533
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,430
<PP&E>                                         262,441
<DEPRECIATION>                                 169,833
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 302,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,337
<BONDS>                                         17,020
<COMMON>                                         9,920
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   302,368
<SALES>                                        331,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               331,764
<CGS>                                          297,149
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  297,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   190
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,741
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,240
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,656
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,584
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,584
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
        

</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Rodney W. Si ppel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2440

___________ Gary L. Smith, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Molly Lancaster; Oprah Winfrey; * Harpo Productions, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 23, 2006 Filed: June 28, 2006

___________ Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gary Lee Smith appeals the district court’s 1 orders dismissing Molly Lancaster and granting summary judgment in favor of Oprah Winfrey and Harpo Productions in his defamation and copyright-infringeme nt action. After de novo review, see Kasper v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co. , 425 F.3d 496, 502 (8th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment); Moore v. Sims , 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)-2- (dismissal), we conclude the dismissal and grant of summary judgment were proper. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### TAYLOR v. THE STATE.

(Decided December 19, 1916.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. H. P. Heflin.

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, P. J.

The appellant is a fugitive from justice, and his appeal .abates with lieve to reinstate if he surrenders himself before the next term.
[No. 49305-1-I.

Division One.

November 25, 2002.]

#### Patrick Campbell, *Appellant,*v. Lockheed Shipbuilding Corporation, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-2-11084-7, Richard D. Eadie, J., entered September 7, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, C.J., concurred in by Baker and Agid, JJ. Now published at 115 Wn. App. 8.
(76 South. 471)

#### BRYAN v. HUNNICUTT.

(3 Div. 274.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 1917.)

1. Husband and Wife <$=5138(10) — Husband as Wife’s Agent — Alteration of Contract.

If the husband of a woman who owned a building in course of construction was her general agent, having general supervision of the work, and, as such agent, he ordered or contracted for a contractor to finish floors to substitute shellac for the paste filler called for by the contract, and the contractor did so, the wife was bound by the act of her agent.

2. Appeal and Error <$=>925(1) — Presumptions Favoring Court Below.

Where the case was tried without a jury, every reasonable presumption will be indulged in favor of the correctness of the rulings of the trial court.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Action by E. E. Hunnieutt against Hallie F. Bryan. From a judgment for plaintiff,defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Ball & Samford, of Montgomery, for appellant. J. Lee Holloway, of Montgomery, for appellee.

BRICKEN, J.

[1] This is an action for work and labor performed by appellee for the appellant. The parties entered into a written contract whereby appellee was to finish some floors with “one coat of paste filler rubbed in.” Appellee left off the paste filler and substituted in lieu thereof a coat of shellac by agreement with appellant’s husband ; otherwise the contract was substantially complied with. There is evidence in the record which would support a finding that Mr. Bryan was the general agent of his wife and that he had “general supervision” of the work on the building that was being erected by his wife. If Mr. Bryan was such agent, and the trial court found that he was, and that as such agent he ordered or contracted for appellee to substitute shellac for paste filler, and appellee did this, the appellant was bound by the act of her agent, and was therefore under all the evidence, liable to the appellee for the balance due under the contract.

[2] The ease was tried by the court without a jury, and every reasonable presumption will be indulged in favor of the correctness of the rulings of the trial court. Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 53. No errors appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SAMFORD, J., not sitting, having been of counsel. ■
§ 2.34 Written notice to beneficiaries. ( a ) *Notice to beneficiaries of programs supported by direct Federal financial assistance.* Organizations providing social services to beneficiaries under programs supported by direct Federal financial assistance from DOL must give the written notice described in paragraph (c) of this section to beneficiaries and prospective beneficiaries.
( b ) *Notice to beneficiaries of programs supported by indirect Federal financial assistance.* The entity responsible for disbursing Federal funds as part of a program of indirect Federal financial assistance administered by DOL must give the written notice described in paragraph (c) of this section to beneficiaries and prospective beneficiaries.
( c ) *Contents of the notice.* The required language for the written notice to beneficiaries and prospective beneficiaries is set forth in appendix C to this subpart. The notice includes the following: ( 1 ) The organization may not discriminate against beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries on the basis of religion, a religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to attend or participate in a religious practice;
( 2 ) The organization may not require beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries to attend or participate in any explicitly religious activities that are offered by the organization, and any participation by beneficiaries in such activities must be purely voluntary;
( 3 ) The organization must separate in time or location any privately funded explicitly religious activities from activities supported by direct Federal financial assistance;
( 4 ) Beneficiaries and prospective beneficiaries may report an organization's violation of these protections, including any denials of services or benefits by an organization, by contacting or filing a written complaint with DOL's Civil Rights Center, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-4123, Washington, DC 20210, or by email to *CRCExternalComplaints@dol.gov ;* and
( 5 ) Beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries may seek information about whether there are any other federally funded organizations that provide these kinds of services in their area by calling DOL's US2-JOBS helpline toll-free at 1-877-US2-JOBS (1-877-872-5627) or TTY 1-877-889-5627.
( d ) *Timing.* The written notice set forth in appendix C to this subpart must be given to prospective beneficiaries before they enroll in the program or receive services from the program. The written notice may be incorporated into materials that are otherwise provided to prospective beneficiaries. When the nature of the service provided or exigent circumstances make it impracticable to provide such written notice in advance of the actual service, organizations must advise beneficiaries of their protections at the earliest available opportunity.
[89 FR 15716, Mar. 4, 2024]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

RESIGNATION OF ELIZABETH C. 

BONN, BAR NO. 7998. 

No. 84047 

FllLED 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RESIGNATION 

This is a joint petition by the State Bar of Nevada and attorney 

Elizabeth C. Bonn for her resignation from the Nevada bar. 

SCR 98(5) provides that Nevada attorneys who are not actively 

practicing law in this state may resign from the state bar if certain 

conditions are met. The petition includes statements from state bar staff 

confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client security 

fund matters are pending against Bonn; and that she is current on all 

membership fee payments and other financial commitments relating to her 

practice of law in this state. See SCR 98(5)(a)(1)-(2). 

Bar counsel has recommended that the resignation be 

approved, and the Board of Governors has approved the application for 

resignation. See SCR 98(5)(a)(2). Bonn acknowledges that her resignation 

is irrevocable and that the state bar retains continuing jurisdiction with 

respect to matters involving a past member's conduct prior to resignation. 

See SCR 98(5)(c)-(d). Finally, Bonn has submitted an affidavit of 

compliance with SCR 115. See SCR 98(5)(e). 

It- V 13 SISUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

• r 
The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). 

Accordingly, we approve attorney Elizabeth C. Bonn's resignation. SCR 

98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted. 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Elizabeth C. Bonn 

Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court 

SLJPRFME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(01 1947A AD7 

. . , 

.A131
[No. 49975-1-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Darrell C. Langendoerfer, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-07213-3, Jay V. White, J., entered February 1, 2002. *Reversed with instructions*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### VACHA, et v LATIMER, et

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Medina Co

No 105.

Decided Oct. 13, 1930

Lorman, Robb & Quallich, Cleveland, and Van Epp & Porter, Medina, for Vacha,- et. Ba»nett & Lerch, for Latimer, et.

FUNK, PJ.

Assuming that these requests, given before .argument, may be correct as abstract propositions of law, we are of the opinion that they had no application to the facts in this case and were confusing and misleading to the jury, and that it was error prejudicial to the defendants to give said special requests to charge, for the reason that the courses and distances given in the description of the premises conveyed are not inconsistent with natural and well-known boundaries.

It will be noted that the boundaries or streets referred to in the description were definitely located in reference to certain monuments, and lot lines by distances given. The question at .issue in this case was, therefore, not ,a question of variance between natural and well-known boundaries with courses and distances, but was a question as to whether or not defendants had included in the description in their deeds lands which they did not own. The land described in the petition is a corner lot, 40.03 feet wide on the south side of Merkle avenue, by 143.85 feet in depth along the westerly side of 54th street in Parma township, Cuyahoga county, Ohio.

The record clearly shows that prior to the execution and delivery of the deed to plaintiffs, the county had appropriated a strip 13.87 feet wide off the easterly side of said lot for street purposes, to widen said 54th street, and had paid defendants or their predecessors in title therefor.

While such a strip of land might not be material in the description of ,a large tract of farm land, it is apparent that it is very material when taken off the width of a lot only 40 feet wide.

While it was the contention of plaintiffs that defendants, well knowing' that said strip of 13.87 feet had been appropriated by the county and had been paid for. conveyed the whole of said lot to plaintiffs without disclosing the fact that said strip had been appropriated and that at the time they bought the lot the public authorities had done nothing by way of physically taking possession of the land and that there was nothing to indicate that said strip had been appropriated for street purposes, the real question at issue was wehther or not defendants had conveyed and warranted title to lands they did not own.

The record further clearly shows that the deeds executed and delivered • by defendants in the chain of title, including the deed to plaintiffs, did include said strip of land and warranted the title thereto: and there is no evidence in the-record to show *690any defense to the petition in the absence of the • reformation of the description in said deeds by an action in equity.

It being thus apparent that the special requests to charge given before argument had no application to the case, it was error for the court to give them, and the judgment will therefore be reversed for error in giving said special requests. Cause remanded for further proceedings according to law. '

Pardee, J, and Washburn, J, concur.
§ 1979.103 Filing of discrimination complaint. ( a ) *Who may file.* An employee who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by an air carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier in violation of the Act may file, or have filed by any person on the employee's behalf, a complaint alleging such discrimination.
( b ) *Nature of filing.* No particular form of complaint is required, except that a complaint must be in writing and should include a full statement of the acts and omissions, with pertinent dates, which are believed to constitute the violations.
( c ) *Place of filing.* The complaint should be filed with the OSHA Area Director responsible for enforcement activities in the geographical area where the employee resides or was employed, but may be filed with any OSHA officer or employee. Addresses and telephone numbers for these officials are set forth in local directories and at the following Internet address: *http://www.osha.gov .*
( d ) *Time for filing.* Within 90 days after an alleged violation of the Act occurs (*i.e.,* when the discriminatory decision has been both made and communicated to the complainant), an employee who believes that he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the Act may file, or have filed by any person on the employee's behalf, a complaint alleging such discrimination. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or e-mail communication will be considered to be the date of filing; if the complaint is filed in person, by hand-delivery, or other means, the complaint is filed upon receipt.
( e ) *Relationship to section 11(c) complaints.* A complaint filed under AIR21 that alleges facts which would constitute a violation of section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 660(c), shall be deemed to be a complaint filed under both AIR21 and section 11(c). Similarly, a complaint filed under section 11(c) that alleges facts that would constitute a violation of AIR21 shall be deemed to be a complaint filed under both AIR21 and section 11(c). Normal procedures and timeliness requirements for investigations under the respective laws and regulations will be followed.
110TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 105

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 6063,

3 an Act to authorize the programs of the National Aero4 nautics and Space Administration, and for other purposes,

5 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the

6 following corrections:

7 In section 601(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the bill, strike ‘‘Or8 biter’’.

9 In section 611(d)(1) of the bill, strike ‘‘first Presi10 dent’’ and insert ‘‘President’’.

11 In section 611(e)(3) of the bill, strike ‘‘correctly’’ and

12 insert ‘‘currently’’.

13 In section 611(e)(7) of the bill, strike ‘‘extention’’

14 and insert ‘‘extension’’.

15 In section 612 of the bill, strike ‘‘operations’’ and in16 sert ‘‘operational’’.
 †

2

SCON 105 ES

1 In section 1119 of the bill, strike ‘‘The Report’’ and

2 insert ‘‘The report’’.

Passed the Senate October 1 (legislative day, September 17), 2008.

Attest:

Secretary.
110TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 105

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives

to correct the enrollment of H.R. 6063.
EXHIBIT 4.2

                        [LETTERHEAD OF LOEHMANN'S, INC.]

April 28, 1999


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  2054

                           Loehmann's, Inc. Form 10-K

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         In accordance with Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Loehmann's,
Inc. (the "Registrant") has not filed herewith any instrument with respect to
long-term debt not being registered where the total number of securities
authorized thereunder does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total assets of
the Registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The Registrant
hereby agrees to furnish a copy of any such agreement to the Securities and
Exchange Commission upon request.

                                       Sincerely,

                                       LOEHMANN'S, INC.


                                       /s/ Dennis R. Hernreich
                                       -----------------------
                                       Dennis R. Hernreich
                                       Title: Senior VP Finance, Chief Financial
                                              Officer, Treasurer and Assistant
                                              Secretary
§ 2570.152 Definitions. For section 3(40) Finding Proceedings, this section shall apply instead of the definitions in 29 CFR 18.2. ( a ) *ERISA* means the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, *et seq.,* 29 U.S.C. 1001, *et seq.,* as amended.
( b ) *Order* means the whole or part of a final procedural or substantive disposition by the administrative law judge of a matter under section 3(40) of ERISA. No order will be appealable to the Secretary except as provided in this subpart.
( c ) *Petition* means a written request under the procedures in this subpart for a finding by the Secretary under section 3(40) of ERISA that a plan is established or maintained under or pursuant to one or more collective bargaining agreements.
( d ) *Petitioner* means the plan or arrangement filing a petition.
( e ) *Respondent* means: ( 1 ) A state government instrumentality charged with enforcing the law that is alleged to apply or which has been identified as asserting jurisdiction over a plan or other arrangement, including any agency, commission, board, or committee charged with investigating and enforcing state insurance laws, including parties joined under § 2570.153;
( 2 ) The person or entity asserting that state law or state jurisdiction applies to the petitioner;
( 3 ) The Secretary of Labor; and
( 4 ) A state not named in the petition that has intervened under § 2570.153(b).
( f ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor, and includes, pursuant to any delegation or sub-delegation of authority, the Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security or other employee of the Employee Benefits Security Administration.
( g ) *Section 3(40) Finding Proceeding* means a proceeding before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) relating to whether the Secretary finds an entity to be a plan to be established or maintained under or pursuant to one or more collective bargaining agreements within the meaning of section 3(40) of ERISA.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Financial Officer under Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

     I Maurice Colson, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Visual Bible International, Inc.;

     2.   Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report.

     3.   Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

     4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and have:

          a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;

          b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior
to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and

          c)   Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

     5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          a)   All significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal controls.

     6.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: June 8, 2004


                                   Maurice Colson, Principal
                                   Financial Officer