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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         912,652
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      27,622,531
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,025,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,367,889
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      41,465,213
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        44,866,553
<LOANS>                                     48,285,569
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (261,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             129,226,970
<DEPOSITS>                                  94,587,153
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         19,337,492
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,302,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             129,226,970
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,376,934
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,047,407
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                43,841
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,468,182
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,306,073
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,505,984
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,962,198
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   11,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,704,196
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                479,882
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     479,882
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   362,850
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.46
<LOANS-NON>                                     42,649
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               250,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              261,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           261,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Samuel K. Nester, Appellant.

Argued October 6, 1937;

decided October 22, 1937.

*629
      *Leland R. Yost*for appellant.

*Nathan D. Lapham, District Attorney (Lyman B. Lewis*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs and Finch, JJ. Dissenting: Crane, Ch. J., Loughran and Rippey, JJ., on the ground that the exclusion of the evidence of defendant’s good character was material error.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 235 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 235

         Designating July 1, 2007, as ``National Boating Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 14, 2007

  Mr. Whitehouse (for himself and Mr. Vitter) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         Designating July 1, 2007, as ``National Boating Day''.

Whereas the United States boating population exceeds 73,000,000 individuals 
        utilizing and enjoying nearly 18,000,000 recreational watercraft;
Whereas the recreational boating industry provides more than $39,000,000,000 in 
        sales and services to the United States economy and provides nearly 
        380,000 manufacturing jobs;
Whereas there are approximately 1,400 active boat builders in the United States 
        with parts and materials being contributed from all fifty States;
Whereas boating appeals to all age groups and is a haven for relaxation that 
        includes sailing, diving, fishing, water skiing, tubing, sightseeing, 
        swimming, and more;
Whereas boaters serve as monitors and stewards of the environment, educating 
        future generations in the value of this country's abundant water and 
        other natural resources; and
Whereas Congress passed the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 and later created 
        the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund in 1984, both of these actions having 
        resulted in a decline in the rate of boating injuries: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates July 1, 2007, as ``National Boating Day'';
            (2) recognizes the value of recreational boating and 
        commemorates the boating industry of the United States for its 
        environmental stewardship and innumerable contributions to the 
        economy and to the mental and physical health of those who 
        enjoy boats; and
            (3) urges citizens, policy makers, and elected officials to 
        celebrate National Boating Day and to become more aware of the 
        overall contributions of boating to the lives of the people of 
        the United States and to the Nation.
                                 <all>
```
(79 South. 879)

#### SMITH v. STATE.

(6 Div. 488.)

(Court of appeals of Alabama.

May 7, 1918.)

Appeal rom Circuit Court, Jefferson County: H. P. leflin, Judge.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for he State.

SAMFORD, J.

Affirmed on the record.
§ 1612.10 Recordkeeping requirements. ( a ) In the case of any meeting or portion(s) thereof to be closed to public observation under the provisions of this part, the following records shall be maintained by the Executive Secretary of the agency: ( 1 ) The certification of the Legal Counsel pursuant to § 1612.9 of this part;
( 2 ) A statement from the presiding officer of the meeting or portion(s) thereof setting forth the time and place of the meeting, and the persons present;
( 3 ) A complete electronic recording adequate to record fully the proceedings of each meeting closed to the public observation, except that in a meeting closed pursuant to paragraph (h) or (j) of § 1612.4, the agency may maintain minutes in lieu of a recording. Such minutes shall fully, and clearly describe all matters discussed and shall provide a full and accurate summary of any actions taken, and the reasons therefor, including a description of each of the views expressed on any item and the record of any roll call vote. All documents considered in connection with any item shall be identified in the minutes.
( b ) If the agency has determined that the meeting or portion(s) thereof may properly be closed to the public, the electronic recording or minutes shall not be made available to the public until such future time, if any, as it is determined by the Commission upon request, that the reasons for closing the meeting no longer pertain; Provided, however, that any separable portion of a recording or minutes will be made promptly available to the public if that portion does not contain information properly withheld under § 1612.4.
( c ) The agency shall maintain a copy of the electronic recording or minutes for a period of two years after the meeting, or until one year after the conclusion of the proceeding to which the meeting relates, whichever occurs later.
[42 FR 13830, Mar. 14, 1977, as amended at 47 FR 46276, Oct. 18, 1982]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 103 (Friday, May 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13318]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-054; A-588-604]


Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, From Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan; Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews; Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limits.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limits for the preliminary results of the 1998-1999 administrative 
reviews of the antidumping finding (A-588-054) and duty order (A-588-
604) on tapered roller bearings from Japan. These reviews cover 3 
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States 
and the period October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott at (202) 482-2657 or 
Robert James at (202) 482-0649, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Enforcement Group III, Office Eight, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because it is not practicable to complete 
these reviews within the normal statutory time limit, the Department is 
extending the time limits for completion of the preliminary results 
until October 31, 2000 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. See Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini 
to Troy H. Cribb, on file in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. 
The deadline for the final results of this review will continue to be 
120 days after publication of the preliminary results.
    These extensions are in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675 (a)(3)(A)).

    Dated: May 15, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 00-13318 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

MacDermid  Inc.
Ratio  of  Earnings  to  Fixed  Charges  -
<S>                         <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>           <C>
                                                       Nine Months  Twelve Months
                           Years Ended December 31,       Ended          Ended
                           2004       2003        2002 December 2001   March 2001
 Earnings:
  Income (loss) from
  continuing operations   $53,224    $49,820    $31,477    $(17,288)      $43,753
    Income tax
    expense (benefit)      24,513     23,466     16,122      (9,309)       29,752
                          -------    -------    -------     --------      -------
  Income (loss) from
   continuing operations
   before tax expense      77,737     73,286     47,599     (26,597)       73,505
  Add  back  fixed  charges
  included  in  income:
    Interest expense       31,014     31,051     34,458      25,095        33,339
    Estimated Interest
     in rent expense        2,324      2,407      2,612       2,110         2,164
                          -------    -------    -------     -------      --------
  Adjusted Earnings      $111,075   $106,744    $84,669     $   608      $109,009
                         ========   ========    =======     =======      ========

 Fixed  charges:
  Interest expense       $ 31,014   $ 31,051    $34,458     $25,095      $ 33,339
  Estimated Interest
   in rent expense          2,324      2,407      2,612       2,110         2,164
                         --------   --------    -------     -------      --------
  Total fixed charges    $ 33,338   $ 33,458    $37,070     $27,205      $ 35,503
                         ========   ========    =======     =======      ========

 Ratio of Earnings           3.33       3.19       2.28        0.02          3.07
  to Fixed Charges       ========   ========    =======     =======      ========

 Amount of deficiency
 in years where ratio
 is less than 1 to 1       NA          NA          NA       $26,597         NA
                         ========   ========    =======     =======      ========

<FN>

Note  (a)     The  nine  months  ended  December  31,  2001 includes charges for
impairment  of  goodwill  and  intangible  assets  of  $34,458 and restructuring
charges  of  $9,666.  Excluding  these  charges  and  the  taxes  related  to
them, the ratio of earnings  to  fixed  charges  would  have  been  1.13  to  1.


</TABLE>
Submitted on record and briefs December 16, 1992,

convictions affirmed; remanded in part for resentencing February 3, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MICHAEL ROBERT BRIGGS, *Appellant.*

(91CR2192; CA A73610)

844 P2d 946

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Peter Gartlan, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.

Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Amy E. Alpaugh, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Deits and Riggs, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*102PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for possession and delivery of controlled substances. ORS 475.992. He contends that the court erred in placing his conviction for delivery in crime seriousness category 6, rather than category 4. The state concedes that the court erred. We accept that concession. Defendant has withdrawn his other assignment of error.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing for delivery of controlled substance.
§ 570.107 “Goods”.[10] ( a ) Section 12(a) prohibits the shipment or delivery for shipment in commerce of “any goods” produced in an establishment which were removed within 30 days of the employment there of oppressive child labor. It should be noted that the statute does not base the prohibition of section 12(a) upon the percentage of an establishment's output which is shipped in commerce.
( b ) The Act furnishes its own definition of “goods” in section 3(i), as follows: *Goods* means goods (including ships and marine equipment), wares, products, commodities, merchandise, or articles or subjects of commerce of any character, or any part or ingredient thereof, but does not include goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of the ultimate consumer thereof other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.
The term includes such things as food-stuffs, clothing, machinery, printed materials, blueprints and also includes intangibles such as news, ideas, and intelligence. The statute expressly excludes goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of an ultimate consumer other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof. Accordingly, such a consumer may lawfully ship articles in his possession although they were ineligible for shipments (commonly called “hot goods”) before he received them.[11] Footnotes -
570.107
[10] The term *goods* is discussed in more detail in part 776 of this title (Interpretative Bulletin on the coverage of the wage and hours provisions) issued by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division.
[11] For a discussion of the exclusionary clause in section 3(i) of the Act, see *Powell et al.* v. *United States Cartridge Co.,* 70 S. CT. 755.
Prelimin ary Regulatory Determinations 3 – Strontium References
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-417/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/384/EEC - Recognition of architects' diplomas - Registration procedure with the Greek Technical Board (Technico Epimelitirio Elladas) - Obligation to provide a document stating that the evidence of formal qualifications concerned is covered by the system of mutual recognition)

(2004/C 262/13)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-417/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 November 2002, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Patakia) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, K. Lenaerts and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.

----
**Exhibit 32**

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 Annual Report of Louisville Gas and Electric Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge,

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 results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

March 21, 2007
|        | /s/ Victor A. Staffieri              |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Chairman of the  Board, President    |   |
|   | and Chief  Executive Officer         |   |
|   | Louisville Gas  and Electric Company |   |
|   |                                 |   |
|   |                                 |   |
|   | /s/ S. Bradford  Rives               |   |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer             |   |
|   | Louisville Gas  and Electric Company |   |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

1

----
EXHIBIT 23











                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
on Form S-4 (File No. 333-36013) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-55367, 33-56515
and 33-38425 and 33-38426) of Mark IV Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries of
our report dated March 22, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Mark IV Industries, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of February 28, 1999 and for each of the three fiscal years
in the period ended February 28, 1999, which reports are included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.





                                       PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP








Rochester, New York
May 28, 1999
**EXHIBIT      31.1**

***Certifications***

| (a)   | All                significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or                operation of internal control over financial reporting which are                reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to                record,                process, summarize and report financial information;                and |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b)   | Any                fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other                employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal                control                over financial reporting. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**R.      H. WOLLENBERG**
#### Petty, *Appellant,*v. Douglass.

1. Principal and Surety: notice to sue. A surety cannot base a claim to be released from bis obligation on a verbal notice to the creditor to proceed against tbe principal debtor. To be available the notice must be in writing.

*;2.*-: extension op time. Part payment of a note after maturity is no valid consideration for an extension of time.

*Appeal from Caldwell Circuit*Court.—PIon. E. J. Deoaddus, Judge.

Reversed. •

*71
      *C. S. McLaughlin*for appellant.

Norton, J.

This suit was instituted upon a note in which A. P. Douglass was principal, and A. Sovereign, security. In a trial of the cause in the circuit court of Caldwell county, where it had been taken by appeal, judgment was rendered in favor of said Sovereign, from which plaintiff has appealed.

Sovereign, the security, sought to be excused from liability on the ground that after the note became due he notified the plaintiff that Douglass, the principal, was about to fail, and to make his money out of him, as he, Sovereign, was unable to pay the debt; and on the further ground that plaintiff had extended the time for payment of the note.

1. principal and surety: notice to sue. The notice given by Sovereign to plaintiff to make the money out of Douglass, was not in writing, but merely verbal, and was not, therefore, available to ¿efen¿an|. as a c|efense) as has been held by this court in the following cases : *Langdon v. Markle,*48 Mo. 357; *Cain v. Bates,*35 Mo. 427; *Freligh v. Ames,*31 Mo. 253.

2. --: extension of time. The second ground of defense,.viz : extension of time for payment, relied upon, is equally unavailable for the reason that the evidence wholly fails to establish aQy consideration for the promise of plaintiff to give further time or indulgence. The evidence shows that Douglass, the principal in the note, paid plaintiff $100 and also the interest then due on the note, amounting to $10, and that plaintiff agreed not to press him for the remainder, although defendant said he had the money and could pay the entire amount of the note if plaintiff demanded it. Part payment of a note after maturity is no valid consideration for an extension of time. Parsons on Bills and Notes, p. 240.

The court erred in refusing to instruct as requested by *72plaintiff’, that under the evidence plaintiff’ was entitled to recover, and in giving an instruction to the effect that if the jury believed that notice was given to plaintiff to make the money out of the principal, and that defendant paid $110 on the note, saying he had the money to pay it all if demanded, and plaintiff did not demand it, and agreed not to press him, they would find for defendant Sovereign.

Eor the errors above indicated the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded,

in which all concur. .