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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,942,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  308,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (47,381)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,266,760
<PP&E>                                       2,048,044
<DEPRECIATION>                               (399,247)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,137,741
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          462,831
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,538,796
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,137,741
<SALES>                                      1,024,329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,024,329
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,247,261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                92,948
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              70,332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,178,393)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,178,393)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,178,393)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.33)


</TABLE>
SRP® - Delivering More Than Power 

Scott Harelson

SRP Media Relations

Feb. 6, 2007

MEDIA ADVISORY 

SRP Ceases Effort to Restart Mohave Generating Station 

Concludes that Timeline Delays would Render the Facility Economically Unfeasible

Salt River Project, a 20 percent owner of the Mohave Generating Station (MGS) in Laughlin, Nev., is 

ending efforts to return the plant to service. 

Returning the Mohave facility to service would have provided much-needed energy to Arizona and the 

growing greater Phoenix metropolitan area. However, after efforts failed to reach a purchase agreement 

with Southern California Edison (SCE), the majority owner and operator of MGS, SRP has concluded that 

it will be unable to bring the facility back into service with the appropriate environmental emission controls 

in sufficient time to make it economically feasible for SRP customers. 

SRP believes SCE intends to continue with its ongoing effort to identify potential new buyers for Mohave. 

The 1,580-megawatt plant has been shut down since December 2005, pursuant to a consent decree. In 

June 2006, SCE and two other co-owners, Nevada Power Co. and the Los Angeles Department of Water 

and Power, announced they would no longer pursue a restart of the plant. In September 2006, SRP 

announced its plans to seek a new ownership group to extend the life of Mohave. 

SRP had formed a new ownership group that was prepared to complete a number of steps including, 

among others, the construction of approximately $750 million in additional pollution-control systems that 

would have significantly reduced emissions from the plant, exceeding the requirements of the consent 

decree. 

Other steps included the development of a new water supply system for the Black Mesa Coal Mine, 

located on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations in northeastern Arizona. The new ownership group was 

prepared to commit to providing infrastructure that would have made groundwater from the new system 

available to nearby Hopi and Navajo communities that are currently without fresh-water delivery facilities. 

In addition, a restart of Mohave would have extended the coal operations at the Black Mesa Mine, 

providing greatly needed employment for tribal members and revenue for education, medical care and 

other social services for the Navajo and Hopi Indian communities. 

SRP is the third-largest public power utility in the nation, providing electric service to more than 900,000 

customers in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. 

SRP: SRP Ceases Effort to Restart Mohave Generating Station Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLAYTON DOUGLAS DANGERFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-93-83) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 21, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clayton Douglas Dangerfield, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew R. Hubbell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Dangerfield’s appeal of this order was dismissed in United States v. Dangerfield , No. 98-6694 (4th Cir. Nov. 16, 1998) (unpublished). 2 PER CURIAM: Clayton Douglas Dangerfield seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his 1997 motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999), denying relief on his second habeas motion, denying his motion for reconsideration before a three-judge panel, and denying his two motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, dismiss as frivolous the portion of Dangerfield’s appeal which challenges the denial of his first § 2255 motion, * and dismiss the remainder of Dangerfield’s appeal on the ground that his second habeas motion is successive. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Docket: EBSA-2010-0007 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in 

Retirement Plans 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0007-0001 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options 

Document: EBSA-2010-0007-DRAFT-0010 

Comment on FR Doc # N/A 

Submitter Information 

Name: Dale W Brewer 

Address: 

3908 Old Columbus Rd. 

Springfield, OH, 45503 

Email: brewerdrj@earthlink.net 

Organization: Citizen 

General Comment 

Please keep the government's hands off my retirement. The government's function with regard to 

private retirement funds should be to guard against fraud and mismanagement. Private 

companies that manage these funds have done a better job of protecting their customers' money 

than the government has done managing the social security system. I feel if the government had 

access to retirement funds it would not protect it, but would "borrow" the money and use it for 

other purposes. This is what happened to Social Security funds that had been placed into a "lock 

box" to protect the money for future generations. Such a large pool of money that U S citizens' 

retirement fund represent would be too much of a temptation for our politicians. It would vanish 

and be replaced by another bankrupt government program. Thank you for asking for my opinion. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: February 17, 2010 

Received: February 03, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80a8d19d 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 2/17/2010
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

August 9, 2021 

ERRATA

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2020-2009

ANDRA GROUP, LP,

Appellant

V.

VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, L.L.C., VICTORIA'S 

SECRET STORES BRAND MANAGEMENT, INC., 

VICTORIA'S SECRET DIRECT BRAND 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, L BRANDS, INC.,

Appellees

Decided: August 3, 2021

Precedential Opinion

______________________ 

Please make the following change:

On page 3, line 4, of the majority opinion, delete 

“[J.A. 56]”. 

Case: 20-2009 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 08/09/2021
fet A We eriny

2911

900 DATAMASTER

9-1-1 Database Software
for Today and Tomorrow

June 17, 2010

Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance Assistance
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5653
Attention: RIN 1210-AB42

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20210.

Dear Sir/Madam,
1 would like to comment on the rules identified above.

We are a small family business with 11 employees. We currently pay 100% of health care premiums
for our employees and their families {a total of 20 people). It is extremely costly and the PPO option
offers what could only be described as high-deductable coverage at Cadillac prices. The PPO is the
only option available to our two out-of-state employees. About 30% of our employees are covered by
their spouses outside of the company. Our premiums for the remaining 70 % come to about
$90,000/year. (We are not eligible for any tax credits since salaries do not meet the requirements.)

We had always assumed at some point, with our health care insurance premiums growing at
15%/year, that we would need to require that employees make some contribution. By limiting our
employee contribution to 5% as the rules now require, we are being punished for our current
generosity. While this timit might make sense to limit an employer who now pays 30% of employee
premiums, it doesn’t make sense to an employer who now pays 100%.

If you add to this no flexibility as far as coverage, co-pays, co-insurance, and deductible, we are
completely hamstrung.

Where we were once the ideal employer who really cared about our employees, we will be held
hostage by the cost of insurance coverage while competing in a very aggressive software market

To be honest, the only attractive option would be to drop coverage entirely and pay the penalty..
Sincerely

pr LEO

Teresa LaRocco
Vice President and CFO

Cc: Rep. Dennis Moore
10975 Benson, Sulte 350

Overland Park, Kansas 66210-2130
913.469.6401 * 911Datamaster.com
From: Bob Fry [mailto:rfry@segmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:45 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RE: RIN 1210-AB33

To Whom it May Concern,

I am appalled to even have to respond to the Government’s request for commentary

on the proposed legislation.  It is Marxist in nature and represents the sanctioned

looting of the retirement accounts of hard‐working individuals.  The Government has

already demonstrated its intentions through its looting of the Social Security funds

contributed in trust by the American people.

You want public commentary and so here it is.

                                Bob Fry
H. Res. 561

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 1, 2002.

Whereas there are more than 200 Hispanic-serving institutions in the United States;

Whereas Hispanic-serving institutions provide the quality

education so essential to full participation in a complex,

highly technological society;

Whereas the number of Hispanic Americans enrolled in college is growing twice as quickly as enrollment at all colleges, according to a recent report from the Department

of Education;

Whereas Hispanic-serving institutions have allowed many students to attain their full potential through higher education;

Whereas the achievements and goals of Hispanic-serving institutions are deserving of national recognition; and

Whereas Hispanic Heritage Month is an appropriate time to

express that recognition: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved,

SECTION 1. RECOGNITION OF HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS.

The House of Representatives—
2

•HRES 561 EH

(1) recognizes the significance of Hispanic-serving

institutions;

(2) recognizes that Hispanic-serving institutions are

indispensable in meeting the educational needs of one of

the Nation’s youngest and fastest-growing populations;

(3) commends the Nation’s Hispanic-serving institutions for their commitment to academic excellence for

all students, including low-income and educationally disadvantaged students;

(4) urges the presidents, faculty, and staff of the

Nation’s Hispanic-serving institutions to continue their

efforts to recruit, retain, and graduate students who

might otherwise not pursue a postsecondary education;

(5) recognizes the importance of title V of the

Higher Education Act of 1965, which aids in strengthening the academic quality, institutional management,

and financial stability of Hispanic-serving institutions;

and

(6) requests that the President issue a proclamation

calling on the people of the United States and interested

groups to demonstrate support for Hispanic-serving in-
3

•HRES 561 EH

stitutions in the United States during that month with

appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.

Attest:

Clerk.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10721 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ATUL NANDA; JITEN JAY NANDA , Defendant s
- Appellant s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 65

- 1 USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 65

- 2

Before DAVIS, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Atul Nanda and Jiten “Jay” Nanda (the Nandas) appeal the denial of their motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. On direct appeal, we affirmed the Nandas ’ convictions for crimes arising fro m a conspiracy to commit visa fraud. United States v. Nanda , 867 F.3d 522, 525 (5th Cir. 2017), cert. denied , 2018 WL

* 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 June 26, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10721 Document: 00514529754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2018No. 17

- 10721

2 1317816 (Apr. 16, 2018) (No. 17

- 8114). T he new

- trial motion was filed while the direct appeal was pending. We review the denial of a new
- trial motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Pratt , 807 F.3d 641, 645 (5th Cir. 2015). “Questions of law are reviewed de novo, but the district court’s findings of fact must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous.” Id. (internal quota tion marks and citation omitted). Rule 33 motions are not favored. Id. T he Nandas argue that the Government promise d two testifying

c odefendants that they would not be immediate l y deported and that the promise was not revealed until sentencing, when the Government sought to modify a restitution award to preclude the codefendants’ convictions from qualifying as “aggravated felonies.” The Nandas also assert that the

c odefendants testified falsely, with the Government ’ s knowledge, that they had not been prom ised a particular immigration result. The c odefendants’ plea agreements stated that the Governme n t could not promise a particular immigration result. Moreover, prior to trial, the Government accurately disclosed the intent of the agreements . Th us, th e district court did not clearly err by concluding that there was no undisclosed promise. Further, the district court did not clearly err by finding that the

c odefendants did not testify falsely as to their understa nding of their plea agreement s , even if that understanding m ay have been incomplete in some respects

. See Pratt , 807 F.3d at 645; see also United States v. Dunnigan , 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993) ; United States v. Simpson , 741 F.3d 539, 555 (5th Cir. 2014)

. Finally, even were we to a s sume ther e was undisclosed impeachment evidence or false testimony, there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the verdict. See United States v. Stanford , 823 F.3d 814, 83 8

- 3 9 (5th Cir. 2016)

. The judgment is AFFIRMED

. Case: 17-10721 Document: 00514529754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2018
Argued May 14,

modified June 17, 1924.

#### AUGUST WEMME et al. *v.*FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, et al.

(227 Pac. 277.)

Charities — Facts Held to Justify Allowance of $15,000 as Attorneys’ Fees.

Where, but for active labors of attorneys, principal object of a charitable trust would have been disregarded, and resources of decedent’s estate, amounting to between $400,000 and $500,000, were restored to original trust largely through their efforts, *held,*that attorneys were entitled to fee of $15,000 and $1,000 for expenses necessarily incurred.

From Multnomah: Harry H. Belt, Judge.

In Banc.

In the matter of the allowance of attorney’s fees and expenses.

*Mr. Thomas Mannix*and *Mr. Dan E. Powers,*appellants, *in pro. per.*

No appearance *contra.*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court fixing the fees of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

While this case was originally begun by plaintiffs in their own behalf, the attorneys, upon further investigation, caused the state to be brought in as a party, and in this court the principal contention resolved itself into an effort on the part of plaintiffs to compel the execution of the trust, so far as it related to the White Shield Home of Portland, Oregon, and in this and to this end the briefs of plaintiffs’ attorneys, as well as those of the state, were directed.

*387It is clear that but for the active labors of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Messrs. Mannix and Powers, the original and principal object of the trust would have been disregarded, and the moneys which the decedent intended principally to devote to the institution which he attempted to found would have been dissipated in other activities. The fact that the resources of the estate have been restored to the original trust, so that they will be devoted to the end which the deceased so earnestly desired in his will, is largely, if not entirely, owing to the labors of plaintiffs ’ attorneys, and, as indicated in our former opinion, they should be reasonably compensated. They should also be compensated for such expenses .as they incurred in bringing about this end. Expenses incurred in behalf of the original plaintiffs are disregarded here. The estate is large, amounting somewhere, perhaps, at this time, to between $400,000 and $500,000 in value. Were this a mere contest between individuals, we would be inclined to fix the compensation at a very much larger figure than we will under the present circumstances. This being a charitable trust, we think that the sum of $15,000 should be awarded the attorneys for their services, and, as compensation for expenses necessarily incurred in bringing about the result arrived at, we allow the sum of $1,000, and a decree will be so entered here.

It having been stipulated in the court below that a separate allowance should be made to each attorney, it is therefore ordered that Mr. Mannix and Mr. Powers each be paid the sum of $7,500, and $500 each as expenses. Modified.

Burnett and Coshow, JJ., not sitting.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00345-CR

Jackie Lee Gandee Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

County Court of Matagorda County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2018-0021

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 9, 2018
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 (0.03 MB)
 
 The U.S. military killed several key Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists this week including a senior ISIL leader and finance minister who led certain external affairs and plots Defense Secretary Ash Carter said here Friday.
 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
#### James Gould, Appellant, v John Nyce, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.