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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MUTUAL RISK
MANAGEMENT LTD.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 1998  AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000826918
<NAME>  MUTUAL RISK MANAGEMENT LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY>  U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       404,088
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                              0
<EQUITIES>                                       0
<MORTGAGE>                                       0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             404,088
<CASH>                                      80,052
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                         697,459
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      26,486
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,356,572
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            796,103
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                        198,395
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                       42,145
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                            132,860
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       412
<OTHER-SE>                                 280,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,356,572
<PREMIUMS>                                  28,929
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          8,064
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                            (213)
<OTHER-INCOME>                              35,694
<BENEFITS>                                  21,499
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  8,095
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        25,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             17,442
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,267
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         15,175
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,175
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.34
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                   0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                              0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                               0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                  0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                          0


</TABLE>
From: "Gordon, Norma" Norma.Gordon@lfr.com

Sent: 08/13/2008 04:13 PM To: Jeff Telander/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Norm Davis" ndavis@morinbrick.com Subject: EPA Information Collection Request for Brick and Structural Clay Products Mr. Telander: On behalf of Morin Brick Company (MBC), LFR is submitting the completed EPA information collection request (ICR) for their Auburn, Maine facility, in accordance with the June 9, 2008 letter from Mr. Peter Tsirigotis of EPA to Mr. Norman Davis of MBC. Attached is the ICR file (Excel workbook) as well as the requested attachments. The attachments include the cost estimate for the dry limestone adsorber (DLA) and a pro cess flow diagram, as well as raw material test results for hydrogen fluorides and chlorides. It is important to note that MBC's Auburn facility is not subject to the MACT. The DLA was installed because of State of Maine Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements. Per our telephone conversation on July 13th, we have not completed the survey for MBC's former Gorham, Maine facility. As we discussed, the Gorham facility has been shut down since February 2005 and MBC has no intention of re

- starti ng operations at that site. In fact, the property is currently in the process of being sold, and the brick plant is expected to be demolished by the buyer. MBC has made every effort to provide all available information as requested in the survey. The ec onomic information on Form F is considered confidential business information. A hard copy of that data is being submitted separately. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let us know. Sincerely, Norma Gordon Norma J. Gordon Senior Associate LFR One Union Street, Suite 5 Portland, ME 04101 (207)774

- 3644 Direct Dial (207)272

- 6825 Mobile (207)774

- 3686 Facsimile norma.gordon@lfr.com Visit us at www.lfr.com This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or

copying o f this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e

- mail and delete this message, along with any attachments, from your computer. Thank you. (See attached file: Morin Brick ICR 6

-4

- 08.xls)(See attached file: Morin Brick

- Plant Layout.pdf) (See attached file: Morin Brick

- DLA Cost Estimate.pdf) (See attached file: Morin Brick

- Chlorides Analysis.pdf) (See attached file: Morin Brick

- HF Analysis.pdf)
§ 42.50-1 General. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart set forth the requirements for the text of the various load line certificates issued to vessels complying with the applicable requirements in this part. See §§ 42.07-35 and 42.07-40 for requirements regarding load line assigning and issuing authorities. See § 42.07-45 for requirements regarding load line certificates, their text and arrangement.
( b ) The 1966 international load line certificate and exemption certificate shall be the same as set forth in this subpart in the model Forms A1, A2, A3, and E1, except for the following authorized variations which shall also apply to model Forms B, C1, C2, and C3: ( 1 ) As indicated in § 42.13-30, the freeboards and load line marks which are not applicable to a specific vessel need not be entered on the certificate issued.
( 2 ) The provisions of Note 3 on the front of the certificate forms (other than Model E1) may be changed to correctly describe the situation applicable to the vessel concerning information and instructions furnished the master about loading and ballasting the vessel to provide a guide as to stability under various conditions and as to avoid unacceptable stresses in the vessel's structure.
( c ) In the load line certificate the assigning and issuing authority shall set forth its full official designation; i.e., its legal name, address of home office, and reference to the authorization from the Commandant where an assigning and issuing authority other than the American Bureau of Shipping is designated.
[CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9017, June 5, 1969]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                       5,241,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,654,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (493,520)
<INVENTORY>                                 11,550,009
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,992,138
<PP&E>                                       7,874,542
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,918,681)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,863,877
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,777,242
<BONDS>                                      1,355,547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       33,801,930
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,744
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,894,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,863,877
<SALES>                                     61,942,765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            62,107,110
<CGS>                                       30,676,673
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,676,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            30,899,878
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (334,646)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                501,068
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,800,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,301,068
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,301,068
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
§ 520.5 Standard tariff terminology. ( a ) *Approved codes.* The Standard Terminology Appendix contains codes for rate bases, container sizes, service, etc., and units for weight, measure and distance. They are intended to provide a standard terminology baseline for tariffs to facilitate retriever efficiency. Tariff publishers can use additional codes, if they are clearly defined in their tariffs.
( b ) *Geographic names.* Tariffs should employ locations (points) that are provided by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or the Geographic Names Information System developed by the U.S. Geological Survey. Ports published or approved for publication in the World Port Index (Pub. 150) should also be used in tariffs. Tariff publishers can use geographic names that are currently in use and have not yet been included in these publications.
[89 FR 31, Jan. 2, 2024]
Argued and submitted December 13, 1995,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration January 24, 1996

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Michael L. Wofford, Claimant. ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, *Petitioner, v.*Michael L. WOFFORD, *Respondent.*

(WCB 94-04772; CA A87858)

909 P2d 1242

Adam T. Stamper argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Cowling, Heysell, Plouse, Ingalls & Moore.

G. Duff Bloom argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Coons, Cole, Cary & Wing, P.C.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.

RIGGS, P. J.

*562RIGGS, P. J.

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board affirming an administrative law judge’s order relying on *Williams v. Gates, McDonald & Co.,*300 Or 278, 709 P2d 712 (1985), to uphold the compensability of medical treatment for a nonwork-related preexisting condition as a prelude to treatment of a compensable condition. In 1995, the legislature enacted Oregon Laws 1995, chapter 332, section 3, which is codified at ORS 656.225:

> “In accepted injury or occupational disease claims, disability solely caused by or medical services solely directed to a worker’s preexisting condition are not compensable unless:

> “(1) In occupational disease or injury claims other than those involving a preexisting mental disorder, work conditions or events constitute the major contributing cause of a pathological worsening of the preexisting condition.

> “(2) In occupational disease or injury claims involving preexisting mental disorder, work conditions or events constitute the major contributing cause of an actual worsening of the preexisting condition and not just of its symptoms.

> “(3) In medical service claims, the medical service is prescribed to treat a change in the preexisting condition as specified in subsection (1) or (2) of this section, and not merely as an incident to the treatment of a compensable injury or occupational disease.”

The statute is applicable here. Or Laws 1995, ch 332, § 66; *Volk v. America West Airlines,*135 Or App 565, 899 P2d 746 (1995). We reverse and remand the case to the Board for reconsideration in the light of ORS 656.225.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION



Certification of Principal Accounting Officer



I, Wm. Lee Popham, Principal Accounting Officer, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Admiral Financial Corp.;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.



Dated: September 25, 2009



/s/ Wm. Lee Popham

Wm. Lee Popham, Principal Accounting Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25A0309. REGINALD CRUMPTON v. LORRAINE CRUMPTON.

Reginald Crumpton appeals from the superior court’s final judgment and

decree of divorce entered on July 19, 2024.Lorraine Crumpton, the appellee, has filed

a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Appeals from “judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic

relations cases”must be made by application for discretionary appeal.OCGA§ 5-6-35

(a) (2); see Evans v. Jackson, 368 Ga. App. 170, 173 (1) (b) (889 SE2d 343) (2023).

“Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Hair

Restoration Specialists v. State of Ga., 360 Ga. App. 901, 903 (862 SE2d 564) (2021)

(punctuation omitted); Smoak v.Dept.of HumanResources, 221Ga.App. 257, 257 (471

SE2d 60) (1996). Because Reginald Crumpton failed to file an application for

discretionary appeal, we lack jurisdiction over this direct appeal. Accordingly,

Lorraine Crumpton’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

October 02, 2024

10/02/2024
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-286]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Sunshine Act Meeting; No. 07-01

Time and Date: 9 a.m. (CST), January 25, 2007. Fogelman Conference 
Center, University of Memphis, 330 DeLoach Street, Memphis, Tennessee 
38152.

Status: Open.

Agenda

Old Business

    Approval of minutes of November 30, 2006, Board Meeting.

New Business

    1. President's Report.
    2. Chairman's Report.
    A. Board Committee membership appointments.
    3. Report of the Finance, Strategy, and Rates Committee.
    A. Two-Part Real Time Pricing Arrangements for a directly served 
customer.
    4. Report of the Operations, Environment, and Safety Committee.
    A. TVA Board Practice on delegation of authority on capital 
expenditures.
    B. TVA Board Practice on approval of fuels, power trading, and 
related contracts.
    5. Report of the Audit and Ethics Committee.
    6. Report of the Corporate Governance Committee.
    A. Appointment of assistant secretaries.
    7. Information Item.
    A. Board approved framework for settlement of Johns Manville class 
action lawsuit, which is subject to court approval.

For more information: Please call TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-
6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. Information is also available at TVA's 
Washington Office (202) 898-2999. People who plan to attend the meeting 
and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000. Anyone who wishes to 
comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA 
Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

    January 18, 2007.
Maureen H. Dunn,
General Counsel and Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-286 Filed 1-19-07; 12:11 pm]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gilbert J. Pomar, III,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
     of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.


Date: November 14, 2002                 By: /s/ Gilbert J. Pomar, III
      ------------------------------       -------------------------------------
                                           Gilbert J. Pomar, III, President and
                                             Chief Executive Officer
98-2140.

#### State v. McDonough.

Hamilton App. No. C-970689. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that no conflict exists within the meaning of S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2)(B). See *State v. Cook*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570. This cause is therefore dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
# C_2013038EN.01003102.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/31

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Van Neyghem v Council

(Case F-77/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Promotion year 2007 - Refusal of promotion - Annulment - Implementing measures - Fresh comparative examination of the merits)

2013/C 38/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kris Van Neyghem (Tienen, Belgium) (represented by: M. Verlando, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the decision adopted in implementation of the judgment in Case F-53/08 rejecting the applicant’s application for promotion to grade AST 7 in promotion year 2007 and the application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of those incurred by Mr Van Neyghem; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of those incurred by Mr Van Neyghem;

| 3. | Orders Mr Van Neyghem to bear three-quarters of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Van Neyghem to bear three-quarters of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 40.

1

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending October 11, 2008

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us