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



<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 38,295
<SECURITIES>                                              451
<RECEIVABLES>                                           3,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       42,533
<PP&E>                                                 32,787
<DEPRECIATION>                                         29,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         50,743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   9,922
<BONDS>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                   33
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                                107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           50,743
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          851
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        8,182
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        682
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (7,398)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (7,398)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (7,398)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.11)






</TABLE>
[Nos. 20195-3-III; 20828-1-III.

Division Three.

December 3, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. John Frederick Warren, *Appellant. In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of*John F. Warren, *Petitioner.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 98-1-00582-6, John M. Antosz, J., entered June 25, 2001, together with a petition for relief from personal restraint. Judgment *reversed*and petition *granted*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Kurtz, J.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 20 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2007 

Referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of 

the United States, the President is the ‘‘commander in 

chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’’, and 

in such capacity the President has the command of the 

Armed Forces, including the authority to deploy troops 

and direct military campaigns during wartime; 

Whereas under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the 

United States, Congress has the power of the purse specifically as it relates to the Armed Forces, and in such 

capacity Congress has the responsibility to fully and adequately provide funding for United States military forces, 

especially when they are at war and are defending the 

Nation; and 

Whereas when United States military forces are in harm’s 

way and are protecting our country, Congress and the 

Nation should give them all the support they need in 

order to maintain their safety and accomplish their assigned missions, including the equipment, logistics, and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

SCON 20 RFH 

funding necessary to ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such support is the responsibility of both the 

Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of Government: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that Con3 gress should not take any action that will endanger United 

4 States military forces in the field, including the elimi5 nation or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such 

6 action with respect to funding would undermine their safe7 ty or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned 

8 missions. 

Passed the Senate March 15, 2007. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
§ 2704.306 Further proceedings on the application. ( a ) The determination of an award will be made on the basis of the record made during the proceeding for which fees and expenses are sought, except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) On request of either the applicant or the Secretary, or on the administrative law judge's own initiative, the judge may order further proceedings, such as an informal conference, oral argument, additional written submissions or, as to issues other than substantial justification (such as the applicant's eligibility or substantiation of fees and expenses), pertinent discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Such further proceedings shall be held only when necessary for full and fair resolution of the issues arising from the application and shall be conducted as promptly as possible.
( c ) If the proceeding for which fees and expenses are sought was conceded by the Secretary on the merits, withdrawn by the Secretary, or otherwise settled before any of the merits were heard, the applicant and the Secretary may supplement the administrative record with affidavits or other documentary evidence.
( d ) A request that the judge order further proceedings under this section shall specifically identify the information sought on the disputed issues and shall explain why the additional proceedings are necessary to resolve the issues.
[54 FR 6286, Feb. 9, 1989]
#### WILLIAMS v BOHLEY et

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Medina Co

No. 102.

Decided April 25, 1930

J. B. Palmquist, Medina, for Williams.

John A. Weber, Medina, for Bohley, et.

PER CURIAM

The principal error complained of is that the finding of the trial court is against the weight of the evidence.

Whether the finding was justified depends entirely upon whether the trial judge believed the testimony of the witnesses for defendant in error or the witnesses for plaintiff in error.

After a careful consideration of the evidence as disclosed by the record, we are unable to reach the conclusion that the finding of the trial court is against the weight of the evidence.

The claim is made that the court was in error in ordering plaintiff in error committed to the jail of the county until the costs of said proceedings are paid, and we agree with this contention.

One found guilty of contempt in violation of an injunction of the court may be ordered to pay a fine and imprisoned until such fine is paid, but the court is without power to order him committed to jail until the costs are paid.

The judgment in this ease will therefore be modified sa as not to provide for imprisonment for nonpayment of costs, and as so modified the judgment is affirmed.

Funk, PJ., Pardee, J., and Washburn, J., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(a)












                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
LaBarge, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
33-53583 and No. 33-31330 on Form S-8 of LaBarge, Inc. of our report dated
August 9, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of LaBarge, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of June 27, 1999 and June 28, 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows, and related
schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 27, 1999,
which report appears in the June 27, 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K of LaBarge,
Inc.








KPMG LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
September 23, 1999


<PAGE>   2
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(a)













                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Managers
NotiCom L.L.C.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-53583 and 33-31330) on Form S-8 of LaBarge, Inc. of our report dated July 23,
1999 relating to the balance sheet of NotiCom L.L.C. as of June 27, 1999, and
the related statements of operations, members' equity, and cash flows for the
period from July 22, 1998 (inception) through June 27, 1999, which report
appears in the June 27, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of LaBarge, Inc.



/s/ KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
September 23, 1999
#### International Harvester Company of America, Inc., Respondent, *v.*James P. Whelan et al., Respondents, and Bethlehem Steel Corporation et al., Appellants.

Submitted July 13, 1937;

decided October 5, 1937.

Motion to amend the remittitur denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 274 N. Y. 162.)
# EUR-Lex - 32000R1470 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R1470

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1470/2000 of 5 July 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals **

*
Official Journal L 165 , 06/07/2000 P. 0016 - 0016 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1470/2000

of 5 July 2000

amending Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 907/2000(2), and in particular Article 33(12) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1000/2000(3), which entered into force on 13 May 2000, inter alia amends Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87(4) establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds.

(2) That amendment also makes it necessary to adjust Article 6(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1452/1999(6).

(3) At the same time, references to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87(7), as replaced by Regulation (EC) No 800/1999(8), can be updated.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 6(3) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 is replaced by the following:

"3. Where the difference in weight exceeds 10 %, the special refund shall be the same as the refund on products falling within CN code 0201 30 00 90/60 applicable on the date given in box 21 of the export licence on the basis of which the formalities under Article 5(1) or Article 26(1) of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 were completed.

4. The penalty laid down in Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 shall not apply in the cases referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3."

Article 2

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

It shall apply to operations for which the formalities referred to in Article 5(1) or Article 26(1) of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 are completed on the basis of export licences applied for from 13 May 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 5 July 2000.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 105, 3.5.2000, p. 6.

(3) OJ L 114, 13.5.2000, p. 10.

(4) OJ L 366, 24.12.1987, p. 1.

(5) OJ L 212, 21.7.1982, p. 48.

(6) OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 17.

(7) OJ L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1.

(8) OJ L 102, 17.4.1999, p. 11.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer of

HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1. Horizon Bancorporation, Inc's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.

/S/ James J. BazataJames J. Bazata
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

August 11, 2003
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sections 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.

*Docket Number:*                     OST-2000-7203.                

*Date Filed:*                     April 5, 2000.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                

*Subject:*

PTC COMP 0609 dated 31 March 2000

Mail Vote 074—Resolution 024j 

Special Construction Rules (Amending) 

Intended effective date: 15 April 2000 

Andrea M. Jenkins,

Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 00-11687 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
----

----

I Comunicaciones

Consejo

----

Comunicación relativa a la apertura de los contingentes fijados mediante la Decisión del Consejo de 21 de junio de 2004, que modifica la Decisión del Consejo de 15 de diciembre de 2003 sobre el comercio de determinados productos siderúrgicos entre la Comunidad Europea y Ucrania

(2004/C 167/01)

----

(1)DO L 227 de 26.6.2004.

(2)DO C 150 de 5.6.2004, p. 1.

----

Comisión

----

Tipo de cambio del euro (1)

25 de junio de 2004

(2004/C 167/02)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Fuente: tipo de cambio de referencia publicado por el Banco Central Europeo.

----
#### FLATT v LYNCH et

Ohio Anneals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No. 2245.

Decided December 23, 1929

Messrs. Wm. F. & H. Henry Miller and J. K. Raabe, Toledo, for Flatt.

Messrs. Conn & Holloway and Edwin J. Lynch, Toledo, for Lynch et.

RICHARDS, J.

The action Qf the court of common pleas in dismissing the, cross-petition of the defendants, Thomas. Lynch and Helena A. Lynch, was proper on the ground that it did not set forth a cause of action against e.ither the plaintiff Or any of the defendants. The cross-petition avers the execution of a valid contract with the plaintiff for the purchase of the property and pleads as a reason for the defendants’ being released from its terms that after a thorough examination of the property they became convinced they did not desire to purchase it: This would not be sufficient reason for escaping the liability imposed by the contract. It is true that the contract itself provides for the execution bv the parties of a further land contract or a warranty deed, and no later instrument of writing appears to have been made by the parties. Notwithstanding this situation, the written contract which had been made obligated all of the parties thereto according to its provisions. The cross-petition, not setting forth a good cause of action; judgment will be. entered dismissing the same.

The issue raised that the cause has been settled between the parties is denied *46by the defendants, Thomas Lynch and Helena A. Lynch, and is not passed on by this court as no evidence thereon has been submitted. .

As certain issues are still pending in the court of common pleas, the claimed settlement can be determined in that court.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.
#### The Central Bank *versus*Charles Prentice and Trustee.

*Oct. 11th.*

*Oct. 12th.*

A mortgagee of personal property, not in possession, is not chargeable as the trustee of tile mortgager ; but a creditor of the mortgager may have a remedy under *St**1829, *c**124, [Revised Stat. *c**90, § 78 *et*seg.] as well where the mortgagee is in possession, as where he is not.

The answer of the supposed trustee, Moses Adams, set forth, that the defendant, being indebted to him in the sum of about $ 135, on October 19th, 1835, mortgaged to him certain articles of personal property of the alleged value of $ 355, in order to secure the payment of a note for the sum of $ 300 on demand ; that the property was never delivered to him and was never in his possession ; and that the mortgage was recorded.

It further appeared, that on August 31st, 1836, the trustee assigned the mortgage and the note to Jonathan Warren, and réceived his note for the sum of $ 140, instead thereof.

In the Court of Common Pleas, the trustee was discharged. The plaintiff excepted.

*' Barton*and Kinnicutt, for the plaintiffs.

*C.*Mien, for the trustee.

*Per Curiam.*

The Court are of opinion, that a mortgagee of personal property, who is not in possession of the property, is not chargeable as the trustee of the mortgager. He is certainly not the debtor of the principal defendant, and has no *credit*to be charged ; and it is equally clear, that he has no goods, which could be surrendered up to an officer. But a creditor is not without remedy ; the *St.*1829, c. 124, furnishes a remedy adapted as well to the case where the mortgagee is in possession, as where- he is not. The decision of the Court of Common Pleas discharging the trustee upon his answer, we think was correct; and the exception is overruled, end the judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7963 JAMES C. HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VANESSA P. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 07-6468 JAMES C. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VANESSA P. ADAMS, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00057-HEH) Submitted: May 10, 2007 Decided: May 14, 2007- 2 - Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, James C. Harris, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. Harris also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for release. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Harris v. Adams , No. 3:06-cv-00057-HEH (E.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2006; Jan. 16, 2007; Mar. 23, 2007). We deny Harris’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
#### CLARK v RUBINSTEIN

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

Decided June 17, 1929

Moses H. Dixon, Cleveland, for Clark.

Joseph Rubinstein, Cleveland, for Rubinstein.

VICKERY, PJ.

There were three theories on which this action might have been maintained. The first would be on the ground of a lien,— the materials being furnished by Rubinstein which went into the property of Ella Clark; but there is no evidence in the record that he perfected a lien. The second theory would be that Turner had a claim against Ella Clark and had assigned that claim to Rubinstein and whatever was due to Turner by Ella Clark could be recovered on this assignment, even though the suit was brought in his own name. This was not done either. The only other theory under which this suit could have been maintained was upon the theory that Rubinstein was the principie, either undisclosed or disclosed, and that Turner was merely in his employ and the contract, although in the name of Turner, was really a contract between Ella Clark and Rubinstein; and inasmuch as the court could only have found on one of these three theories, and the other two being negatived, it must have been upon the third theory that the court found a judgment in favor of Rubinstein against Ella Clark. So it becomes important to examine the bill of exceptions; and upon examination of the bill of exceptions we find that there is no certificate by the trial judge that it contains all the evidence and the assumption would be that inasmuch as the court could not have found for the plaintiff without evidence, being introduced in the case to show that the relation of an undisclosed principle or perhaps of a disclosed principle existed the court must have found that the contract was made between Ella Clark and Rubinstein, although Turner’s name was used in the contract.

A reviewing court must assume that the trial court had evidence before it upon which to base its judgment unless the contrary appears ,and the bill of exceptions not being complete or at least having no certificate that it contains all the evidence we must assume that the court had proper evidence before it to sustain its finding. With that in view we find there is no error in this record and the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.

Levine and Sullivan, JJ, concur.
# dianol

May 7, 2012 Mr. Dennis DeVany Chief, Essential Air Service Division Office ofAviation Analysis Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue SE, Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

### 2 l,! '· (1 I ' -' STEVE ROSENTHAL, MAYOR 101 FrontStreet • P.O. Box 269

Indianola, Mississippi 38751 Office: 662.887.1825

Fax: 662.887.6009 Cell: 662.207.0684 coimayor@bellsouth.net

The City of Indianola, Mississippi wishes to lend its support to the proposal ofSilver Airways to provide essential airservice at Greenville, Ms as replacement for current Delta Air lines service. Local air service that provides an effective connection to the national and international air transportation system is critical to the economic well being of the entire Mississippi Delta. The Silver Airways proposals offers the best proposal for air service out ofGreenville, Ms. The size and type airplane as well as servjce toAtlanta makesthis the most logical choice forservice. I believe the Silverair service proposal is our best option to have consistent, dependable and convenient service forthe Delta. 1/we urge the Department ofTransportation to award SilverAirways the designation to provide Greenville, MS and the Mississippi Delta essential airservice. Best regards,

# ~((~ Steve Rosenthal