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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,752
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,191
<PP&E>                                         107,212
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 117,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,034
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           143
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   117,174
<SALES>                                          6,746
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,907
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,194
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,877
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,703)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,703)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,703)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.28)


</TABLE>
Merrimack,

June, 1896.

#### Fellows *& a. v.*Fellows. Howe, *Adm’r, & a., v.*Fellows & *a.*

Cross-bills in Equity. In the first case the defendant filed an answer and the plaintiff's a special replication. In the second *612case the defendants, wbo are the plaintiffs in the first, pleaded the pendency of that case in bar, and also filed an answer. The bills, answers, and replication allege numerous facts, nearly all of which are in dispute. Seven questions of law arising upon the pleadings were reserved.

*Sargent, Hollis Mies*and *William H. Sawyer,*for the plaintiffs in the first, and the defendants in the second case.

*Albin, Marlin Howe,*for the defendant in the first, and the plaintiffs in the second case.

Carpenter, C. J.

All the questions reserved might not arise if the facts were found. Some of them, possibly all of them, might turn out to be immaterial. It often happens that grave and difficult questions of law arise upon pleadings, especially when they are of the character of those in these cases, which disappear upon an investigation of the facts. In these cases, it is clear that the facts should be found before an attempt is made to settle the law controlling the rights of the parties.

*Case discharged.*

Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
**EXHIBIT 23.3**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Aarohi Communications, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement No. 333-105650 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-122758 on Form S-4, and Registration Statements Nos. 333-108974, 333-98773, 333-83298, 333-121175, 333-43316, 333-127041, and 333-127042 on Form S-8 of McDATACorporation and subsidiaries of our report dated March 5, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Aarohi Communications, Inc. and subsidiary (the Company), a development stage enterprise, as of December 31, 2003, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ deficit and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2003 and for the period from September 20, 2000 (inception) to December 31, 2003, which report appears in theJanuary 31, 2006, annual report on Form 10-K of McDATA Corporation and subsidiaries. 

Our report dated March 5, 2004 contains an explanatory paragraphstating that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and is subject to the risks associated with companies in the development stage that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidatedfinancial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. 

Mountain View, California 

April 24, 2006
#### Vallandingham v. Commonwealth.

(Decided June 18, 1920.)

Appeal from Bath Circuit Court.

iSedncttonr — Seduction Under Promise of Marriage — Evidence.—• In a prosecution for seduction under promise of marriage, it is *534fprejwdiml error to permit the prosecuting witness either in substance or effect to testify that as a result of the illicit re* lations a child was horn.

G. 0. EWING and W. B. WHITE for appellant.

CHARLES I. DAWSON, Attorney General, 0. W. GOODPASTER and W. 0. HAMILTON for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Chiep Justice Carroll

Bever sing.

The appellant, Yallandingham, was found guilty of seducing Grace Purvis under a promise of marriage and from the judgment on the verdict' he appeals.

The only witnesses who testified as to any material fact in the case were Grace Purvis, the prosecuting witness, who was about 20 years of age, and the accused, a young man of 22. She testified that Yallandingham accomplished heir’ seduction after he had promised to marry her; while he denied that he had promised to marry or had sexual intercourse with the accused.

On the trial the prosecuting witness was asked and answered over the objection of counsel for defendant these questions: “Q. Did you ever have any sexual relations with him? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long after the first time that you had sexual relations with him was it before your baby was born? A. It was seven or eight months or something that way. Q. Up to the time that you had sexual relations with him had any other man had sexual knowledge of you? A. No, sir.”

Arid it is now .insisted that the court _ committed prejudicial error in permitting these questions to be asked ,and- answers made.

In the case of Jordan v. Commonwealth, 180 Ky. 379, we had the competency of evidence of this nature before us and held that it was incompetent and prejudicial. To the same effect is Cline v. Commonwealth, 186 Ky. 429; Hoskins v. Commonwealth, 188 Ky. 80. The evidence here introduced is substantially the same as that held inadmissible and prejudicial in the Jordan case.

It is also complained that the attorney for the Commonwealth in his closing argument was guilty of misconduct in referring to this incompetent evidence. The court, however, admonished the jury not to regard it, *535and as this error will not again occur, nothing more need he said about it. .

For the error mentioned, the judgment is reversed, with directions for a new trial not inconsistent with this opinion.
**EXHIBIT 23.2****INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**The Board of DirectorsCT Communications, Inc.:     We consent to incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Registration Nos. 33-59641, 33-59645, 333-15537,333-38895, 333-65818, 333-119873 and 333-65846) of CTCommunications, Inc. of our report dated February 19, 2004,relating to the audited consolidated balance sheets of PalmettoMobileNet, L.P. as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and therelated consolidated statements of income and partners’equity, and cash flows for each of the three years endedDecember 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001, which report is includedin the December 31, 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K ofCT Communications, Inc.     /s/ Bauknight Pietras & Stormer, P.A.Columbia, South CarolinaMarch 28, 2005
Coos,

June, 1895.

#### Dunn *v.*Merrimack County Odd Fellows’ Mutual Relief Association.

An insurance association’s receipt of assessments, in justifiable ignorance of the fact that the insured had forfeited his membership, does not estop it to insist upon the forfeiture.

Assumpsit. Facts found by a referee. The plaintiff is the widow of John Dunn, who was admitted to membership in the defendant association, December 28, 1882. In his application for admission he agreed “ to abide by the laws, rules, and regulations of the association now in force or that may be hereafter made.” The certificate of membership provided that he “ is a member” of the association and he “is entitled to all the privileges and benefits thereof so long as he complies with the bylaws as now made, and such as may hereafter be made, and no longer.” The by-laws provided that, “ to retain mémbership in this association, the member must retain membership in good standing in his lodge,” and that “should a member be suspended or expelled from his lodge, his membership immediately ceases in this association; nor is the association bound to his widow . . . for any pecuniary benefit.” At the time of his admission Dunn was a member of a lodge in Gorham. February 16, 1884, he was suspended from membership in that lodge. lie then resided in Connecticut. After his suspension he paid to the association all the assessments that were made until his death, November 20, 1886. These assessments amounted to $28, which the association received in ignorance of the fact that Dunn had been suspended from his lodge. Upon learning that fact, they sent to the plaintiff a draft for $28, which was returned. The insurance feature of the association is entirely distinct from the business of the lodges. The insurance was made payable to the plaintiff, who is entitled to recover $1,000 and interest, if the action can be maintained.

*366
      *Daley Goss*and *Ladd f Fletcher,*for the plaintiff.

*William L. Foster,*for the defendants.

*Per Curiam.*
      ***

By the terms of the contract,, the liability assumed by the association was terminated when Dunn was suspended from his lodge. It does not appear that it was the duty of the association to.keep informed of the suspension of members from their respective lodges, or that their ignorance of Dunn’s suspension was due to any fault on their part. Hence their receipt of the assessments from him, who had full knowledge of the fact of his suspension, does not estop them to insist upon the terms of the contract. There is no ground on which the action can be maintained. When the association deposits $28 with the clerk of court for Dunn’s administrator, there will be

*Judgment for the defendants.*

All concurred.

See foot-note on page 22.
From: Lorien Prince [mailto:lprince@forumarchitecture.com] 

Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:06 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Cc: Tracy Wells; Jim Black; Norman Stoehr; kcooper@esi-enterprise.com 

Subject: In opposition to "Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule"

Forum Architecture & Interior Design, Inc. is proudly an ESOP company.   We regard our

employee ownership in our company to be essential to our long‐term success.  Not only does

our ESOP make significant contributions to our employees’ retirement savings, our ESOP status

also allows us to serve our employees, our community, and our nation by providing much‐

needed jobs.  To change the definition of fiduciary would be harmful as it would substantially

increase our costs, but moreover, it jeopardizes the independent nature of the relationship we

have with our valuation team.  Much like a CPA firm must be independent with respect to its

audit clients in order for its opinion to be trusted and unbiased, the valuators of our ESOP stock

must also remain independent ‐‐ not fiduciaries. We believe there are other avenues the DOL an

pursue that would address any issues that this proposal was designed for.  

We respectfully oppose this proposed rule.

Sincerely,

Lorien L. Prince, CPA | Controller

 

Forum Architecture & Interior Design, Inc.

Forum Architecture & Interior Design, PLLC, James B. Black, Architect (MS), LEED® AP

The Design Resource Group, Inc. 

745 ORIENTA AVE., SUITE 1121 | ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FL 32701 

P: 407.830.1400, F: 407.830.4143 

Direct Line: 407-478-6706 

www.forumarchitecture.com

lprince@forumarchitecture.com

  

  

Confidentiality: These files and designs contained within are the property of Forum Architecture & Interior Design, Inc. 

and are hereby issued only to the addressee(s). Revision, reproduction, or dissemination, or any use of these files other 

than as a reference for the addressee(s) not expressly authorized by Forum Architecture & Interior Design, Inc. is 

prohibited by law.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.76 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
*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 circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 6, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 03-10239

Summary Calendar

_______________________

LEROY LEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DONNA TANOUE, Chairman

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

Fort Worth Division

Civil Docket 4:01-CV-835-BE

_________________________________________________________________

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

LeRoy Lee appeals the denial of his post-judgment motion

for new trial. Because Lee filed his motion more than ten days

after the district court entered final judgment, the motion is

properly characterized as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Harcon
2

Barge Co., Inc. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th

Cir. 1986). Lee’s notice of appeal, which specifically designates

the post-judgment motion as the order being appealed, is timely

only as to the denial of that motion. Thus, this Court reviews the

district court’s denial of the motion for an abuse of discretion.

See Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465, 470

(5th Cir. 1998). 

The district court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary

judgment, concluding that Lee failed to commence his civil action

within the applicable 90-day window and also failed to exhaust his

disability discrimination claim. Lee reasserted in his postjudgment motion the same argument as was contained in his

opposition to the motion for summary judgment, namely, that his

civil action was not time-barred. After reviewing the briefs and

record, we find no error and affirm the district court’s denial of

the 60(b) motion.

AFFIRMED.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.71 MB)
 
 OIR Special Report Central Command Centcom Inherent Resolve Syria AIR FORCE
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Page 1 of 1

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION. fh Fb / S44), iy . lO

(ON & REGULATIO
PUBLICATIORANCH.

AUG 6 7019

As of: August 06, 2010

PUBLIC Status: Posted

Posted: August 06, 2010
SUBMISSION comments Due: September 15, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0002
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Status as Grandfathered Health Plan under
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Cross-Reference

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0038
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14487

Submitter Information

Name: Rachelle Maddaloni
Address:
Mechanicsburg, PA,

General Comment

If a plan changes from and insured contract to an ASO and retains the insured plan design
without change, does it lose its grandfathered status?

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 8/6/2010
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 438

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that improving men’s

health through fitness and the reduction of obesity should be a priority.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 6, 2002

Mr. TOOMEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

improving men’s health through fitness and the reduction

of obesity should be a priority.

Whereas the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service

has identified obesity as a major health problem;

Whereas 61 percent of adults in the United States are considered overweight or obese, as indicated by a body mass

index (the most reliable measure) of 25 or greater;

Whereas 300,000 deaths each year in the United States are

associated with being overweight or obese;

Whereas the economic cost of obesity in the United States

was about $177 billion in 2000;

Whereas being overweight or obese puts people at a greater

risk of heart disease, certain types of cancer, type 2 dia-
2

•HRES 438 IH

betes, stroke, arthritis, breathing problems, and depression;

Whereas men who are overweight are 50 percent more likely

to have erectile dysfunction and men who are obese are

200 percent more likely to have erectile dysfunction;

Whereas fewer than a third of American adults engage in the

recommended level of physical activity, which is 30 minutes, 3 to 4 times a week; and

Whereas the number of overweight and obese children has

nearly tripled in the past two decades: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) recognizes that being overweight or obese is

3 a major health concern in the United States;

4 (2) commends and supports the work of all or5 ganizations that are taking steps to combat this

6 health problem;

7 (3) urges all governmental, State, and private

8 organizations to do everything in their power to pro9 mote a healthy lifestyle; and

10 (4) pledges to take proactive steps to intensify

11 its efforts to combat this health problem.

Æ
August 11, 2010 

Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance.Ov.ersieht 


Department ofHealth and Human Services 


Attention: OCll0-9991-IFC 


fl)~ ~'¥-.ROlil. 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relatinf;t to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable C~· Act 

I 

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on Cc the interim<finalruleregarding·health plans and.!!grandfather!' status (Document ill IRS-201O-:: -~ 

0010-0001). 

I believe the consumer protections included as part ofthe new health care law are vitally 

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort 

should be made to increase the number ofindividuals covered by the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (pPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would 

extend these protections to consumers under currently existing "grandfathered" plans should not 

be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation ofthese -!, 

regulations. 

Janice Seib 


St. Louis, MO 63127 


<.,~ '. () . 

(I ~'-~ 

i 

I 

t 

.~ __ -1