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


<ARTICLE>        5

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                10,000
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                           66,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     196,200
<PP&E>                                               113,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       316,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                751,900
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              46,550
<OTHER-SE>                                          (482,050)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         316,400
<SALES>                                              441,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     441,100
<CGS>                                                198,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        247,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (4,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (4,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (4,700)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .00


</TABLE>
PROMISSORY NOTE



$6,000.00                                                      January 27, 1999


        The undersigned, Navis Technologies, LTD ("Payor"), promises to pay to
John R. Varsames ("Payee") or order the principal sum of six thousand and 00/100
DOLLARS ($6,000.00) with interest accruing on the unpaid principal balance at
the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, the entire principal balance plus
accrued interest being due and payable on demand.

        Such payment(s) shall be made at Payee's residence located at
Burlington, Vermont, or at such other place as the Payee hereof may designate in
writing, and such payments and any other sum due hereunder shall be made in
lawful money of the United States of America.

        This Note may be prepaid without penalty.

        In the case of default, the Payor agrees to pay the reasonable cost of
collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

        Every maker, guarantor and endorser waives presentment, demand, protest,
and notice and agrees that the time of payment may be extended without notice or
previous consent.

                                                 Navis Technologies, LTD




ATTEST:    /S/                                   By:  /S/
       ---------------------------                  ---------------------------
       Peter M. Doremus, Secretary                  John R. Varsames, President




Paid in Full

Date:       6/9/99
     ----------------------

Signature:   /S/
          -----------------
#### Pavel Grinberg, Appellant, v Howard Safir, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 218]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered May 25, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondents’ seizure of petitioner’s automobile after his arrest for driving while intoxicated and challenging the commencement of civil forfeiture proceedings with respect to the seized automobile, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While the forfeiture of petitioner’s vehicle would, in a broad sense, be susceptible of characterization as punitive *(see, Matter of Attorney-General of State of N. Y. v One Green 1993 Four Door Chrysler,*217 AD2d 342, 345, *lv denied and appeal dismissed*88 NY2d 841), we agree with the article 78 court that, unlike the penalty at issue in *People v Letterlough*(86 NY2d 259), which was the product of judicial improvisation unteth*44ered to any legislative grant of punitive power *(supra,*at 269), respondents’ prerogative to seek forfeiture under the circumstances at bar is authorized by legislative enactment, namely Administrative Code of the City of NY § 14-140 *(see also,*38 RCNY 12-36), and accordingly constitutes no affront to the separation of powers doctrine. Nor do we perceive any issue as to the validity of that Administrative Code provision. Even if petitioner had properly preserved his argument that Administrative Code § 14-140 is preempted by the State Vehicle and Traffic Law, we would find that argument to be without merit since there is no evidence that the State enactment was intended to preclude the municipal civil forfeiture law *(see, Matter of Levy v City Commn. on Human Rights,*85 NY2d 740, 746), and no evidence of a comprehensive effort by the State Legislature to regulate the field in question *(see, Vatore v Commissioner of Consumer Affairs of City of N. Y.,*83 NY2d 645, 649-650). We also agree with the article 78 court that the penalty faced by petitioner would not, if shown to be warranted under Administrative Code § 14-140, constitute an excessive fine *(see,*US Const Eighth Amend), since, in that event, forfeiture would not “notably exceed! ] in amount that which is reasonable, usual, proper or just” *(People v Saffore,*18 NY2d 101, 104). Finally, given the circumstances ordinarily attending the seizure of a vehicle operated by an intoxicated driver, Federal due process principles are not offended by the lack of preseizure notice or hearing *(see, Calero-Toledo v Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.,*416 US 663, 676-680; *United States v One 1976 Mercedes 450 SLC,*667 F2d 1171, 1175).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Buckley, JJ. *[See,*181 Misc 2d 444.]
§ 42.2 Purpose. ( a ) These regulations coordinate the activities of ESA, OSHA and ETA, and are intended to: ( 1 ) Ensure effective enforcement efforts under the protective statutes—i.e., the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act (FLCRA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (*protective statutes*).
( 2 ) Ensure that the enforcement efforts of DOL agencies are coordinated to maximize their effectiveness, yet minimize unnecessary duplication.
( 3 ) Focus the attention of DOL agencies upon the special employment-related problems faced by migrant farmworkers.
( 4 ) Coordinate DOL enforcement efforts with related activities of farmworker groups, federal and State agencies, and other concerned parties outside the Department of Labor whose operations are related to the employment, housing, and working conditions of migrant farmworkers.
( 5 ) Establish an information exchange which will afford the Department, farmworker groups, and other concerned parties outside the Department of Labor the opportunity to exchange information concerning wages, hours and working conditions.
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of The Liberty Corporation of our report dated February 4, 2002, included in the
2001 Annual Report to Shareholders of The Liberty Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of The Liberty
Corporation listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-22591) pertaining to The Liberty Corporation Retirement and
Savings Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-30151) pertaining
to The Performance Incentive Compensation Program and in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-84938) pertaining to The Liberty Corporation
Retirement and Savings Plan, as Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2002
of our report dated February 4, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of The Liberty Corporation incorporated by reference in
the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Greenville, South Carolina
March 27, 2002


                                       41
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                              42,333
<SECURITIES>                                           713
<RECEIVABLES>                                        3,724
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    47,005
<PP&E>                                              32,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                      28,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      55,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               11,420
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                33
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                           4,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        55,016
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2,283
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8,979
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (6,326)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (6,326)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (6,326)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.10)





</TABLE>
#### § 2571.13 Effective date.

This regulation is effective with respect to all cease and desist orders issued by the Secretary under section 521 of ERISA at any time after April 1, 2013.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20-0199 LAURENCE STEWART,

Plaintiffand Appellant, v. MONTANA STATE PRISON,et al.,

Defendants and Appellees. 

# FILED JUN 09 2020
CIe gti r afnM2

3urt Bowen Greenwood

Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal in this matter on the grounds that the Appellant Laurence Stewart is deceased. No representative for Appellant's estate has appeared in this matter and Appellees, via counsel, assert that they are unaware of the appointment ofsuch. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that if a representative for the Estate does not appear by July 1, 2020, this matter shall be DISMISSED without further Order of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord. Dated this I

day ofJune,2020. ChiefJustice 06/09/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0199
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 23

          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-98395, 033-64847, 333-98393, 333-128119 and
333-124076) of Kellwood Company of our report dated March 16, 2006, relating
to the financial statements, management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
March 17, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 Coinless Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis
Sorenson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 3(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities and 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
         the Company.


                                    /s/ Dennis Sorenson
                                    --------------------------
                                    By: Dennis Sorenson
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    August 16, 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coinless Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Darryl
Dorsett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 3(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities and 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
         the Company.


                                    /s/ Darryl Dorsett
                                    ------------------------------
                                    By: Darryl Dorsett
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    August 16, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RAMPART
CAPITAL CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,888,240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,290,625
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,347,155
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,675,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                 101,066
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,200,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        650,718
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,847,567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,200,408
<SALES>                                      2,686,479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,535,154
<CGS>                                          460,724
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  521,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,631,852
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             397,901
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                983,905
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (163,123)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,147,028
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,147,028
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Helmer Brightley, Appellant, v Vincent W.S. Lai et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 487]

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J., and Walter Tolub, J., respectively), entered November 5, 1997 and *132April 29, 1998, *inter alia,*denying petitioner’s application made pursuant to CPLR article 78 for an order directing respondents to furnish documents sought under the Freedom of Information Law, and denying petitioner’s motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing by admissible evidence that the documents requested had not been provided to the attorney who had represented him at his criminal trial or that they were no longer available to petitioner (see, *Matter of Franklin v Keller,*254 AD2d 83; *Matter of Scarola v Morgenthau,*246 AD2d 417; *Matter of Swinton v Record Access Officers for City of N. Y. Police*Dept., 198 AD2d 165). The motion to renew was properly denied (see, *Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558).

We have considered and rejected petitioner’s remaining contentions. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
§ 406.2 Agreement and activities report. ( a ) Every person who as a direct or indirect party to any agreement or arrangement with an employer undertakes, pursuant to such agreement or arrangement, any activities where an object thereof is, directly or indirectly, ( 1 ) to persuade employees to exercise or not to exercise, or to persuade employees as to the manner of exercising, the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; or,
( 2 ) to supply an employer with information concerning the activities of employees or a labor organization in connection with a labor dispute involving such employer, except information for use solely in conjunction with an administrative or arbitral proceeding or a criminal or civil judicial proceeding; shall, as prescribed by the regulations in this part, file a report with the Office of Labor-Management Standards, and one copy thereof, on Form LM-20[1] entitled “Agreement and Activities Report (required of persons, including labor relations consultants and other individuals and organizations)” in the detail required by such form and the instructions accompanying such form and constituting a part thereof. The report shall be filed within 30 days after entering into an agreement or arrangement of the type described in this section. If there is any change in the information reported (other than that required by Item C. 10, (c) of the Form), it must be filed in a report clearly marked “Amended Report” within 30 days of the change.
( b ) The report shall be signed by the president and treasurer or corresponding principal officers of the reporting person. If the report is filed by an individual in his own behalf, it need only bear his signature.
[28 FR 14385, Dec. 27, 1963, as amended at 50 FR 31309, Aug. 1, 1985; 81 FR 16021, Mar. 24, 2016; 83 FR 33842, July 18, 2018] Footnotes -
406.2
[1] Filed as part of the original document.
#### § 2200.41 [Reserved]
#### McCORD v. THE STATE.

(Decided December 21, 1916.)

Appeal from Autauga Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.

No counsel marked for appellant.

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

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         146,340
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               154,174
<PP&E>                                       9,536,147
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,802,796
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,383,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,024,994
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,810,992
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,383,814
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               335,932
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             427,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (755,206)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (755,206)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                122,149
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (633,057)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnnie B. Brown, Jr., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[697 NYS2d 892]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly permitted a police investigator to testify that defendant possessed a silver .380 caliber handgun four days before the attempted robbery and murder. In view of the evidence that one of the participants in the crime carried a silver .380 caliber handgun, that testimony was admissible to establish defendant’s identity *(see, People v Jackson,*237 AD2d 620, *lv denied*90 NY2d 894; *People v Sheriff,*234 AD2d 894, *lv denied*90 NY2d 910; *People v Chamberlain,*96 AD2d 959, 960). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from *864Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.