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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          54,677
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,499
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,575
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    289,504
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          93,674
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            92,965
<LOANS>                                      1,371,908
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,478
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,922,396
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,513,072
<SHORT-TERM>                                   125,076
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             20,883
<LONG-TERM>                                    111,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,756
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,609
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,922,396
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                105,371
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                9,934
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                25,467
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               140,772
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              52,989
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              70,159
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           70,613
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (250)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 73,264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,476
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      23,476
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,668
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.30
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,779
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   923
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,589
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,672
<RECOVERIES>                                       561
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,478
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,478
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"23-2352: BEASLEY v. DVA [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"i5qrDccLlI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-26-2024-23-2352-beasley-v-dva-order-23-2352-order-2-26-2024_2275945\/\">23-2352: BEASLEY v. DVA [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-26-2024-23-2352-beasley-v-dva-order-23-2352-order-2-26-2024_2275945\/embed\/#?secret=i5qrDccLlI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-2352: BEASLEY v. DVA [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"i5qrDccLlI\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: BEASLEY v. DVA [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-2352 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-9241.

#### Dise *v.*Express Marine, Inc.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 12.1
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of National Grid plc;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over
financial reporting ( as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)
-15(f)) for the company and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures
to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to
the company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is
being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control
over financial reporting or caused
such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed
under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding
reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes
in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the
companys disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation;
and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any
change in the companys internal
control over financial reporting
that occurred during the period
covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially
affect, the companys internal
control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (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 company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 companys
internal control over financial
reporting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5                                                   
<LEGEND>                                                        Exhibit 27
                 TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P.
                         FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the financial statements of Time Warner Entertainment Company,
L.P. for the nine months ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000893657
<NAME>                          TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                              296
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                     2,044
<ALLOWANCES>                        371
<INVENTORY>                       3,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  3,405
<PP&E>                           10,377
<DEPRECIATION>                    3,987
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   20,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             3,723
<BONDS>                           6,257
<COMMON>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             1,096
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                        6,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     20,345
<SALES>                           8,183
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  8,183
<CGS>                             5,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     5,342
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     547
<INCOME-TAX>                         64
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 483
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                        483
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0
        

</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2018-2399: Acetris Health, LLC v. US - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"jnH1HK3zHl\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2399-acetris-health-llc-v-us-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-2399: Acetris Health, LLC v. US<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2399-acetris-health-llc-v-us-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=jnH1HK3zHl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-2399: Acetris Health, LLC v. US” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"jnH1HK3zHl\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Acetris Health, LLC v. US (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-2399 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
153P16-2

#### State v. Nashid Porter

Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court, New Hanover County

Denied 06/07/2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,325
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          190,124
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       285,165
<OTHER-SE>                                   (472,964)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,325
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,758
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (36,758)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (36,758)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.005)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Comments on: Revised Brief and Appendix Filing Procedures
No. 10-11230.

#### Hernandez *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
2 May 3, 2013 Craig Glazer V.P., Federal Government Policy glazec@pjm.com (202) 423

- 4743 VI A EMAI L U.S. Department of Energy Email: expartecommunications@hq.doe.gov RE: Ex Parte Communication, Docket EERE

- 2012

- BT

- STD

- 0022 To whom it may

concern; On May 2, representatives from PJM Interconnection, L .L .C., the National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, the Edison Electric Ins titute and the American Public Power Association held a meeting with members of the Department of Energy ’s General Counsel and the Office of Energy

Efficiency

to discuss next steps associated with the referenced docket pertaining to residential electric st orage water heaters. The purpose of this meeting was to explore next steps associated with this rulemaking given the comments received and the public record and to address issues associated with the role of utilities in implementing some of the suggested conditions to any proposed waiver. Sincerely , /s/ Craig Glazer

Attached below: L ist of attendees2

Attendees: **Name Organization**  Kathleen Hogan Roland J. Risser Ari Altman Ashley Armstrong Dan Cohen John Cy mbalsky Department of Energy

Craig Glazer PJM Interconnection Jay Morrison David Mohre Julie Barkemey er Keith Dennis NRECA

Alex Hofmann APPA Steven Rosenstock EEI
May 2, 2012

No. 11-10098 (11A1038).

#### In re Bartee.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death,

presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
501 P.2d 58

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jesse Lee HORTON, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 301.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Sept. 27, 1972.

*218Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, by Howard L. Fell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, and James P. F. Egbert, Certified Third Year Law Student under Rule 28(e), for appellee.

Edward P. Bolding, Pima County Public Defender by John G. Hawkins, Deputy Public Defender, Tucson, for appellant.

KRUCKER, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a sentence of not less than two nor more than four years imposed for a conviction of assault with a deadly weapon under A.R.S. § 13-249 subsec. A, as amended. Originally, appellant was charged under A.R.S. § 13-249, subsec. B with “assault with a deadly weapon, to wit: a gun.” Pursuant to a plea bargain whereby the original charge was amended to strike the words “a gun,” appellant plead guilty to a charge of assault with a deadly weapon under A.R.S. §■ 13-249, subsec. A, as amended. In accordance with the plea bargain, the county attorney dismissed another charge that was. pending.

In compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), appellant’s appointed counsel has-, filed a brief asking us to consider the following question. Was the sentence imposed on the defendant excessive ?

A.R.S. § 13-249, subsec. A, as amended, provides that a person convicted under this statute:

> *“ . .*. shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less-than one nor more than ten years, by a. fine not exceeding five thousand dollars,, or both.”

It is well established that the trial court has a wide discretion in the setting of a sentence. If it is within the statutory limits it will not be modified or reduced on. appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Matthews, 104 Ariz. 421, 454 P.2d 566 (1969); State v. Bible, 104 Ariz. 346, 452 P.2d 700 (1969); State v. Bradley, 99 Ariz. 328, 409 P.2d 35 (1965); State v. Moreno, 17 Ariz.App. 548, 499 P.2d 162 (1972).

Such an abuse occurs only where the judge’s decision is characterized as capricious or arbitrary or by a failure to adequately investigate all facts and circumstances necessary for an intelligent exercise of sound discretion. Shenah v. Henderson, 106 Ariz. 399, 476 P.2d 854 (1970) ; State v. Douglas, 87 Ariz. 182, 349 P.2d 622 (1960) ; State v. Moreno, supra.

An application of this law to the case before us demonstrates that the trial court has not abused its discretion. We have had the benefit of seeing the probation officer’s report and recommendations,, which were available to the trial court.

Having reviewed the record for other error and finding none, the judgment is affirmed.

HATHAWAY and HOWARD, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1903 Use of procedures.

Procedures authorized by this regulation (including, but not limited to, disclosure to a consumer reporting agency, contracting for collection services, administrative offset and salary offset) may be used singly or in combination, so long as the requirements of applicable law and regulation are satisfied.
#### § 101.1101 LMDS service subject to competitive bidding.

Mutually exclusive initial applications for LMDS licenses are subject to competitive bidding procedures. The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.

[67 FR 46379, July 9, 2002]
#### § 302-11.104 When must I and/or a member(s) of my immediate family have acquired title interest in my residence to be eligible for the allowance for expenses incurred in connection with the sale of my residence?

To be eligible for the allowance for expenses incurred in connection with the sale of your residence, you and/or a member(s) of your immediate family must have acquired title or equitable title interest in the residence as illustrated in the following table:

| Type of transfer | Date |
| --- | --- |
| 1. Between official stations in the United States | 1. Prior to the date first notified of the transfer. |
| 2. Returning from completion of any foreign tour of duty to a different official station in the United States, which is 50 miles distance from the official station from which transferred to the foreign official station | 2. Prior to the date notified that you would be transferred to a different location in the United States, which is 50 miles distance from the official station you transferred from the foreign area. |

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001; 67 FR 7219, Feb. 15, 2002]
No. 11-8983.

#### Arafat *v.*Ibrahim.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### § 302-8.201 Am I entitled to reimbursement for extended storage of HHG?

No, your agency will determine when it is in the Government's interest to reimburse you for extended storage of HHG OCONUS.