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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK>0000055387
<NAME>KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,477,345
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     14,238
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         218,900
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        53,314
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,763,797
<COMMON>                                       307,545<F1>
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            299,167
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 606,712
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     40,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           546,330
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 570,755
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,763,797
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      810,114
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            53,256
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     631,470
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     684,726
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        125,388
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            (13,984)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 111,404
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        38,640
<NET-INCOME>                                    72,764
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,256
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   70,508
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        78,347
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       37,290
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         257,420
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes common stock expense of $595.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1607.18 Citations.

The official title of these guidelines is “Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978)”. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978) are intended to establish a uniform Federal position in the area of prohibiting discrimination in employment practices on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These guidelines have been adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Civil Service Commission.

The official citation is:

Section __, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedure (1978); 43 FR __ (August 25, 1978).

The short form citation is:

Section __, U.G.E.S.P. (1978); 43 FR __ (August 25, 1978).

When the guidelines are cited in connection with the activities of one of the issuing agencies, a specific citation to the regulations of that agency can be added at the end of the above citation. The specific additional citations are as follows:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

29 CFR part 1607

Department of Labor

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

41 CFR part 60-3

Department of Justice

28 CFR 50.14

Civil Service Commission

5 CFR 300.103(c)

Normally when citing these guidelines, the section number immediately preceding the title of the guidelines will be from these guidelines series 1-18. If a section number from the codification for an individual agency is needed it can also be added at the end of the agency citation. For example, section 6A of these guidelines could be cited for EEOC as follows:

Section 6A, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978); 43 FR __, (August 25, 1978); 29 CFR part 1607, section 6A.
Exhibit 8
  Significant
    Subsidiaries of Amdocs Limited
  Jurisdiction ofIncorporation orList of the Subsidiaries

Organization

Business NameAmdocs Astrum Limited

Ireland

Amdocs Astrum LimitedAmdocs BCS, Inc.

State of California

Amdocs BCS, Inc.Amdocs BCS Vision, Inc.

State of North Carolina

Amdocs BCS Vision, Inc.Amdocs Canadian Managed Services, Inc.

Canada

Amdocs Canadian Managed Services Inc.Amdocs Champaign, Inc.

State of Delaware

Amdocs Champaign, Inc.Amdocs (Denmark) ApS

Denmark

Amdocs (Denmark) ApSAmdocs Development Centre India Private Limited

India

Amdocs Development Centre India Private LimitedAmdocs Development Limited

Republic of Cyprus

Amdocs Development LimitedAmdocs Holdings ULC

Canada

Amdocs Holdings ULCAmdocs, Inc.

State of Delaware

Amdocs, Inc.Amdocs International GmbH

Switzerland

Amdocs International GmbHAmdocs (Israel) Limited

Israel

Amdocs (Israel) LimitedAmdocs Management Limited

United Kingdom

Amdocs Management LimitedAmdocs Software Solutions Kft

Hungary

Amdocs Software Solutions Limited Liability CompanyAmdocs Software Systems Ltd.

Ireland

Amdocs Software Systems Ltd.Amdocs Stamford, Inc.

State of Delaware

Amdocs Stamford, Inc.Amdocs (UK) Limited

United Kingdom

Amdocs (UK) LimitedCramer Systems Group Limited

United Kingdom

Amdocs Systems Group LimitedEuropean Software Marketing Ltd.

Island of Guernsey, Channel Islands

European Software Marketing Ltd.Longshine Information Technology Co. Ltd.

British Virgin Islands

Longshine Information Technology Co. Ltd.Sypress, Inc.

State of Delaware

Sypress, Inc.Qpass, Inc.

State of Washington

Amdocs Qpass Inc.
# Diario Oficial C 205A/13 d

| | ISSN 1725-244X |
| --- | --- |
| Diario Oficial
  de la Unión Europea | C 205A |
| | |
| Edición en lengua española | Comunicaciones e informaciones | 47o año13 de agosto de 2004 |

ISSN 1725-244X

Diario Oficial

de la Unión Europea

C 205A

Edición en lengua española

Comunicaciones e informaciones

47o año13 de agosto de 2004

---

| Número de información | Sumario | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Informaciones |
| | Agencia Ejecutiva de Energía Inteligente |
| 2004/C 205A/1 | Convocatoria de candidaturas | 1 |

Número de información

Sumario

Página

III   Informaciones

Agencia Ejecutiva de Energía Inteligente

2004/C 205A/1

Convocatoria de candidaturas

1

| ES | |
| --- | --- |

ES

---

III Informaciones

Agencia Ejecutiva de Energía Inteligente

| 13.8.2004 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | CA 205/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2004

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

CA 205/1

---

CONVOCATORIA DE CANDIDATURAS

(2004/C 205 A/01)

La Agencia Ejecutiva de Energía Inteligente busca candidatos con el fin de cubrir algunos puestos. Se publica información detallada sobre estos puestos, las misiones de la Agencia y el procedimiento que debe seguirse para preparar una solicitud en el sitio Internet de la Agencia en la siguiente dirección: http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/intelligent/index_en.html.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      12,168,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       6,002,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            10,950,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 22,815,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      23,117,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        22,981,000
<LOANS>                                    164,456,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,949,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             247,672,000
<DEPOSITS>                                 226,306,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,061,000
<LONG-TERM>                                     35,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    17,140,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,130,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             247,672,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              7,554,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,692,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             9,246,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,789,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,789,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,457,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  260,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,755,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,161,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,161,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,394,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.93
<LOANS-NON>                                    535,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    53,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,687,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   16,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    18,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,949,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,949,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        534,000


</TABLE>
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42394

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

DAVID WESLEY GLORIA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 373

Filed: February 26, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson , Deputy

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney

General, Boise, for respo ndent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

David Wesley Gloria pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance . I.C. § 37

-

2732(c)

. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court

sentenced Gl oria to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two

years

. Gloria filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Gloria appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea f or leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of2 new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the

record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order

denying Gloria ’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
#### MARCELLON v NATAL

Case No. 86-176 AP (County Court Case No. 86-620SP20)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

May 11, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

John R. Greenwood for appellant.

Antonio Natal, pro se.

Before SALMON, SHAPIRO, DONNER, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Based upon the authority of *Durene v. Alcime,*448 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the award of reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party is mandatory and the trial court has no discretion to deny the award.

Accordingly, this case is reversed and remanded to the trial court for action consistent with this ruling.
FAA MCAI AD WORKSHEET (CONTINUED) 

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

anization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Colli 7/29114 

Regional Airline A~sociation 7/29114 

Aircraft O"ncrs & Pi lots Association Robert !-Iackman 7/29114 

Airlines for America Robert Irela nd 7/2911 4 

\
#### § 1601.2 Terms defined in title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

The terms *person, employer, employment agency, labor organization, employee, commerce, industry affecting commerce, State* and *religion* as used in this part shall have the meanings set forth in section 701 of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The term *disability* shall have the meaning set forth in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. The term *genetic information* shall have the meaning set forth in section 201 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.

[74 FR 63982, Dec. 7, 2009, as amended at 85 FR 65217, Oct. 15, 2020]
§ 1917.158 Prohibited operations. ( a ) Spray painting and abrasive blasting operations shall not be conducted in the vicinity of cargo handling operations.
( b ) Welding and burning operations shall not be conducted in the vicinity of cargo handling operations unless such hot work is part of the cargo operation.
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.29 Notice of offset.

Prior to effecting an administrative offset, the agency holding funds of a debtor should advise the debtor of the impending offset. This notice should state that the debtor has been provided his/her rights under the Federal Claims Collection Standards, that a determination has been made that collection by administrative offset would be in the best interests of the United States, the amount of the offset, and the source of funds from which the offset will be made.
# EXHIBIT 23

# 

# Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

****

****

****

The Board of Directors

LaBarge, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-53583, 33-31330, 33-108357, 33-124556, 33-62215 and 33-121031) on Form S-8 of LaBarge, Inc. and subsidiaries our reports dated August 31, 2007 with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of LaBarge, Inc. and subsidiaries as of July 1, 2007, and July 2, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-year period ended July 1, 2007, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of July 1, 2007 and the effectiveness of internal over financial reporting as of July 1, 2007, which reports appear in the July 1, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of LaBarge,Inc. 

Our report with respect to the consolidated financial statements refers to LaBarge, Inc. and subsidiaries adoption of the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R “Share-Based Payment,” effective July 4, 2005.

/s/KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri

August 31, 2007
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

         At January 3, 2004, the Company owned the following subsidiaries:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           PERCENT
                               STATE OR JURISDICTION OF      OF
        SUBSIDIARIES                 INCORPORATION        OWNERSHIP
----------------------------   ------------------------   ---------
<S>                            <C>                        <C>
Carlon Chimes Co.                  Delaware                 100
Lamson & Sessions Ltd.             Ontario, Canada          100
LMS Asia Limited                   Hong Kong                100
Dimango Products Corporation       Michigan                 100
Pyramid Industries II, Inc.        Delaware                 100
</TABLE>
§ 18.21 Party appearance and participation. ( a ) *In general.* A party may appear and participate in the proceeding in person or through a representative.
( b ) *Waiver of participation.* By filing notice with the judge, a party may waive the right to participate in the hearing or the entire proceeding. When all parties waive the right to participate in the hearing, the judge may issue a decision and order based on the pleadings, evidence, and briefs.
( c ) *Failure to appear.* When a party has not waived the right to participate in a hearing, conference or proceeding but fails to appear at a scheduled hearing or conference, the judge may, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, dismiss the proceeding or enter a decision and order without further proceedings if the party fails to establish good cause for its failure to appear.
#### Quitman Manufacturing Co., Inc., Appellant, v North-brook National Insurance Co., Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 469]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about July 21, 1998, which, in an action by plaintiff insured against defendant insurer for breach of the advertising injury clause of a commercial general liability policy, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The action was properly dismissed. While the subject policy covers a claim of copyright infringement only insofar as such claim arises out of plaintiff’s advertising of goods, products or services, the complaint in the underlying action, for which plaintiff seeks to recover its defense and settlement costs, alleged copyright infringement only by reason of plaintiff’s manufacture and sale of goods *(see, Jerry Madison Enters. v Grasant Mfg. Co.,*1990 US Dist LEXIS 1649, *10-12, 1990 Westlaw 13290, 4-5 [SD NY, Feb. 14, 1990, Mukasey, J., No. 89 Civ 2346 (MBM)]). No advertising injury having been alleged in the underlying action, the advertising injury clause is inapplicable (1990 US Dist LEXIS 1649, *4, 1990 WL 13290, 2). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
#### § 1917.70 General.

The provisions of this subpart D shall apply to specialized terminals in addition to any other applicable requirements of this part.
#### ALFRED E. BARNES v HELEN L. BARNES

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided Nov 8, 1919

L. L. George, Youngstown, for Alfred Barnes.

Max Brunswick, Youngstown, for Helen Barnes.

SHERICK, J. (5th Dist) sitting in place of Roberts, J.

FARR, J.

As a ground for reversal it is insisted that the allowance of alimony is excessive and that the plaintiff in error is unable to discharge his obligation in the pyament thereof. It will be recalled that these parties were married ,and lived together for a period of about ten years. Five children were born as a result of that marriage, all of whom were living at the time the cause was heard. It was charged upon the part of the plaintiff below that a pretended friend, by the name of Semple, became a frequent visitor *346at his home, and that his wife became estranged, bestowing her affections upon Semple and withdrawing them from him. Some testimony was offered upon the trial below to show that Semple’s automobile was sometimes parked in the vicinity of the home, also that some considerable friendship sprang up and obtained between Semple and Mrs. Barnes. On the other hand, Mrs. Barnes sought to show that her husband had been guilty of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty. The trial court, after hearing all of the testimony, reached the conclusion that neither party was entitled to a divorce. While some circumstances disclosed by the record may indicate rather a strong friendship between Mrs. Barnes and Semple, yet there is no positive showing that any improper relations existed between the two, nor is it shown that Barnes was guilty of extreme cruelty or gross neglect of duty. The time came when they were estranged from each other, perhaps they no longer occupied the same sleeping room, and the privilege of sexual intercourse had been extended to the husband but a single time, but the court found that neither party was entitled to a divorce, and with that this court is in accord,' and the judgment in that regard is affirmed.

It is claimed, however, that Barnes is unable to pay the sum of $100.00 per month ,as alimony. However, this court has no authority to interfere with the allowance made. A case of interest in this connection is that of Meissner v Meissner, 5 C.D., 305.

The same principle is announced in 26 C. C., N.S., 523. Likewise in the case of Conant v. Conant. 26 O.D., 60, a case worthy of notice in this connection, so that this court has no authority to alter the decree as to the allowance of alimony, and the judgment is affirmed.

Pollock and Sherick, JJ. concur.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of NEON Systems, Inc, (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark J. Cresswell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



November 14, 2003



|/s/  Mark J. Cresswell     
|---------------------------
|Mark J. Cresswell          
|principal executive officer
#### HORVITZ et v BLANTERN

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Lorain Co

No. 502.

Decided October 8, 1929

Messrs. Fauver & Fauver and Anthony Nieding, Elyria, for Horvitz et.

Messrs. Rudin & Keech and D. W. Myers, Elyria, for Blantern.

Syllabus by

PARDEE. J.

A debtor gave a redelivery bond, under 11667 ■ GC., to the sheriff, who had levied an execution upon the automobile of the debtor. Subsequently, and within four months of the levy, said debtor was adjudged a bankrupt, and said debtor refused to deliver said property to the sheriff for sale under said execution, but did deliver the same to the trustee in bankruptcy, to be disposed of according to law:

Held, in a suit upon said'bond, that the discharge in bankruptcy of the debtor discharged the obligors upon said bond.

Full opinion will published later.