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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,698
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                       988
<INVENTORY>                                     47,176
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,898
<PP&E>                                         100,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,095
<BONDS>                                         60,830
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     26,156
<COMMON>                                         5,235
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   200,058
<SALES>                                         58,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,753
<CGS>                                           41,921
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,368
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 865
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,944
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,060
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,884
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-138.

#### Bauer, Trustee of the Craig E. Bauer Insurance Trust *v.*Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<CIK> 0000005227
<NAME> AMERICAN INDEMNITY FINANCIAL CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        71,207,953
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                  13,799,623
<MORTGAGE>                                      25,753
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              85,093,329
<CASH>                                       3,767,901
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                          11,901,307
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       9,480,969
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             139,404,300
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             52,530,100
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         36,762,210
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     6,490,351
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,037,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               139,404,300
<PREMIUMS>                                  51,158,487
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          2,965,137
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               7,212
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 549,530
<BENEFITS>                                  38,544,783
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        18,939,513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,758,960)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (13,088)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,745,872)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,745,872)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.92)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and THE NORTH CAROLINA RULES REVIEW COMMISSION

From Wake County

No. 110P16

ORDER

Defendants’ Petitions for Writ of Certiorari are allowed for the limited purpose of vacating the order entered by the Court of Appeals on 2 March 2016 allowing Plaintiff-Appellee State Board of Education’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Order entered by Judge Paul G. Gessner in this case on 2 July 2015 did not “hold[] that an act of the General Assembly is facially invalid on the basis that the act violates the North Carolina Constitution or federal,” N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(al), and remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of defendants’ challenges to the validity of the trial court’s order on the merits. In light of that determination, Defendant’s Petitions for Discretionary Review are dismissed and Defendant North Carolina Rules Review Commission’s Notice of Appeal is dismissed *ex mero motu.*

By order of the Court in Conference, this 9th day of June, 2016.

s/Ervin. J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 10th .day of June, 2016.

J. BRYAN BOYD Clerk, Supreme Court of North Carolina

s/M.C. Hackney Assistant Clerk, Supreme Court of North Carolina
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16607]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Advanced Technology Institute (``ATI''): 
Forging Defense Manufacturing Consortium (``FDMC'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 10, 2000, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Advanced Technology Institute 
(``ATI'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the 
venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plantiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b) of the 
Act, the identities of the parties are The Advanced Technology 
Institute, North Charleston, SC; and The Forging Industry Association, 
Cleveland, OH. The nature and objectives of the venture are to plan, 
prioritize and implement key research and development initiatives that 
will provide increased technology and market development within the 
manufacturing sector and increased US competitiveness in the global 
marketplace.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-16607 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 50-210.1 Coverage under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act of truck drivers employed by oil dealers. ( a ) The Division of Public Contracts returns to the interpretation contained in Rulings and Interpretations No. 2[1] with respect to coverage under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act of truck drivers employed by oil dealers, by amending section 40(e)(1) of Rulings and Interpretations No. 31 to read as follows: ( 1 ) Where the contractor is a dealer, the act applies to employees at the central distributing plant, including warehousemen, compounders, and chemists testing the lot out of which the Government order is filled, the crews engaged in loading the materials in vessels, tank cars or tank wagons for shipment, and truck drivers engaged in the activities described in section 37(m) above.[2] However, the contractor is not required to show that the employees at the bulk stations, including truck drivers, are employed in accordance with the standards of the act. (Bulk stations as the term is used herein are intermediate points of storage between a central distributing plant and service stations.)
[12 FR 2477, Apr. 17, 1947. Redesignated at 24 FR 10952, Dec. 30, 1959] Footnotes -
50-210.1
[1] Not filed with the Office of the Federal Register.
[2] Refers to Rulings and Interpretation No. 3.
378P09-2

#### State v. Kawamie Shonta Cole

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Decision of COA

1. Denied

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed

3. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

3. Dismissed as moot

4. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Amend Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*with Addendum

4. Allowed

Jackson, J.,

recused
west virginla department of environmental protection 

# SIGN-IN 

# SHEET Public Hearing on proposed 2015 Division ofAir Quality Rules 

### 45CSR14,45CSR16,45CSR25,45CSMO and 

### 45CSR34 Jdy 7,2014,6:00 p,m. The Department ofEnvironmental Protection asks for the 

### informationbelow so 

### that agency staffmay provide responses and information about decisions to you. The information you voluntarily provide on this sheet becomes part ofthe public record related to this topic andmay be released if requested under the Freedom ofInformationAct.

. .. Name (please print) 

# I Address E-mail 

# 1 Co-at



# I I I 

# I Promoting a healthy environment.
AVS

Quality Management

System

Q?M#

AIR·ANM·030-F4

Revision

1

Title: Domestic Challge WorKsheet Date: December 17, 2008

Record of Contacts

"U.:!IO~()~2;L

FDMS Docket No. fAA-.•.. _

WiThwhom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, R.••••A, ALPA. Clc.)?

Organization PCrllon Contacl~d Dille

Bocing ,\nasTasia ,\rscnic" 9/11108

,\To\ Joe White 2/10109

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Checl< llIe Master Usl to Verily That This is the Corred Revision Belo'" Usa
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41031 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE LUIS NIETO

- COSTALES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 457

- 1

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Nieto

Costales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Nieto

- Costales h a s not file d a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 18 , 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41031 Document: 00513956025 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2017No. 16

- 41031

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-41031 Document: 00513956025 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2017
13 April 2016

311P15

#### State v. Thedford Roy Rorie, Jr.

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA14-886)

1. Allowed 09/08/2015

Dissolved 04/13/2016

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Denied

3. State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Denied
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MA RCO D. PIERCE , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 939 LT Case No. 2008

- CF

- 04873 S TATE OF FLORIDA , A ppellee

.

_

_______________________________/ D ecision filed June 21, 2022 3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County , Donna L. Mc I ntosh , Judge. Marco D. Pierce, Graceville, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee.

P ER CURIAM. A FFIRMED.

COHEN , WALLIS and WOZNIAK , JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                                                                      ----------

                       AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
           (SHARES AND DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 FIRST QUARTER ENDED
                                                 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            MARCH 31, 1999                              MARCH 31, 1998
                                                 -----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
                                                  Income        Common          Per           Income        Common           Per
                                                 Available      Shares         Share         Available      Shares          Share
                                                 ---------      ------         -----         ---------      ------          -----
<S>                                              <C>            <C>            <C>           <C>            <C>             <C>
NET INCOME                                        $1,884                                       $1,559

Series B Preferred Stock Dividends                   458                                            0
                                                  ------                                       ------

     Earnings Per Share - Basic                    1,426         7,481          $0.19           1,559         7,443          $0.21

Stock Option & Warrants                                0           112                              0           403
                                                  ------         -----                         ------         -----
                                                   1,426         7,593          $0.19           1,559         7,846          $0.20

Series B Convertible Preferred Stock                 458         1,539                              0         1,539
                                                  ------         -----                         ------         -----
                                                   1,884         9,132          $0.21           1,559         9,385          $0.17
Adjustment for Anti-Dilutive Effect of       
     Preferred Stock Dividend                        458         1,539                            N/A           N/A
                                                  ------         -----                         ------         -----

     Earnings Per Share - Diluted                 $1,426         7,593          $0.19          $1,559         9,385          $0.17
                                                  ======         =====                         ======         =====
</TABLE>

   Refer to Footnote D concerning Earnings per Share calculation methodology





                                    18
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60826

Conference Calendar

CATHERINE M STARR

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION; CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION; PRESIDENT, DAIMLERCHRYSLER

CORPORATION, 

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:05-CV-2107

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Catherine M. Starr filed a pro se suit in federal court alleging a copyright

infringement. The defendants moved for dismissal of the suit under FED.R.CIV.

P.12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) asserting, among other things,thatthe district court was

without jurisdiction because Starr did not have a copyright registration. The

district court granted the motion and dismissed Starr’s complaint for lack of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 24, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-60826

2

subject matter jurisdiction. Our review is de novo. Copeland v. Wasserstein,

Perella & Co., 278 F.3d 472, 477 (5th Cir. 2002). 

“[N]o action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work

shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made in

accordance with this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) (2005). Registration is a

jurisdictional prerequisite to filing an infringement action. Creations Unlimited,

Inc. v. McCain, 112 F.3d 814, 816 (5th Cir. 1997). This court does not require

that a certificate from the Copyright Office be obtained before bringing suit, but

it does require the plaintiff to have filed an application for registration with the

Copyright Office prior to the infringement action. Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932

F.2d 103, 1108 (5th Cir. 1991). Starr’s complaint failed to allege that she had

even applied for copyright registration. The district court did not err in

dismissing Starr’s complaint.

Starr’s motion for a default judgment on appeal is DENIED. The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended April 1, 2007 as to which this Certification is an exhibit
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.

Signed May 7, 2007.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ John C. Fanning                 
|John C. Fanning,                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



24
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 Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the
      Company.



































s/Robert A.
Paul


Robert A.
Paul


Chairman
and


Chief
Executive Officer


August 7,
2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DONNA GRANT

, §

§ No. 2 45 , 2021

Petitioner Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below

— Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§ File No: CN20

- 02581

AARON KELLY

, Administrator § Petition No. 20

- 10923

of the Estate of Richard T. Carter, §

§

Respondent Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: May 11 , 202 2

Decided: Ma y 12 , 2022

Before VALIHURA

, VAUGHN

, and TRAYNOR

, Justices

.

ORDER

This 12 th day of Ma y , 2022

, after consideration of the parties’ briefs and the

record on appeal, it appears that:

(1) When Donna Grant filed her Petition for Paternity Adjudication in the

Family Court (the “Delaware Paternity Action”), a probate proceeding was pending

in the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division. In that

proceeding, which was c aptioned In the Matter of the Estate of [Richard Carter]

,

Case No. 19 E 907, Grant alleged that she was the decedent’s daughter and thus was

“an interested person” 1 in the proceeding.

1 This Court assigned pseudonyms to all parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).(2) The Delaware Paternity Action appears to have been designed to mu ster

proof of the allegation she mad e in the North Carolina probate proceeding that Carter

was Grant’s father.

(3) Aaron Kelly, who is the administrator of Carter’s estate in North

Carolina, is a resident of North Carolina. When she filed the Delaware P aternity

Action, Grant was a resident of Massachusetts. Cart er ’s other intestate heirs live in

Texas and California, respectively.

(4) Kelly moved to dismiss the Delaware Paternity Action in deference to

the first

- filed and then “pending estate proceedi ngs in North Carolina,” 2 noting that

“the issues between the parties are substantially interrelated and can be determined

in North Carolina.” The Family Court granted Kelly’s motion.

(5) Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we a re

satisfied that the Family Court correctly applied the first

- filed rule as outlined in

McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell

- Wellman Engineering Co. 3 and did not

abuse its discretion when it dismissed the Delaware Paternity Action.

2 App. to Opening Br. at A93.

3 263 A.2d 281 (Del. 1970).NOW, THEREFORE, I T IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
# FILED

October 19, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk 

### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF T ENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Supreme Court Appellant, ) NO. 03-S-01-9706-CR-0006 0 ) ) v. ) Hamilton County ) ) WILLIE WILLIAMS, JR., ) Court of Criminal Appeals ) Reversed in Part. ) Appellee. )

ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING A petition for rehearing has been filed on behalf of the appellants. After consideration of the same, a majori ty of the Court is of the opini on that the petition should be and the same is hereby denied at the cost of appellant.

Justice B irch and S pecial Ju stice Reid adhere to the views expressed in their or

iginal dissenting op inion.

_____________________________ FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, JUSTICE

Concur: Anderson, C.J. Holder, J.
No. 11-5043.

#### Padgett *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.