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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,630
<SECURITIES>                                     9,286
<RECEIVABLES>                                  250,410
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               262,326
<PP&E>                                          11,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (234)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 273,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          262,076
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,666
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   273,742
<SALES>                                          1,270
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,270
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,061
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,791)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,791)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,791)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      9
                     
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                        606
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      3,872
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 5,865
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      1,552
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        1,033
<LOANS>                                    40,285
<ALLOWANCE>                                   297  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             52,757   
<DEPOSITS>                                 39,853
<SHORT-TERM>                                    0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           894
<LONG-TERM>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                       77
<OTHER-SE>                                 11,933
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             52,757  
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             2,399
<INTEREST-INVEST>                             318
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              121
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            2,838
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          1,491
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,494 
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       1,344 
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   3
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               712
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               745
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    745
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  473
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .67
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                               3.69
<LOANS-NON>                                   534  
<LOANS-PAST>                                  534    
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              304
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  10
<RECOVERIES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             297
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                          297
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                             0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         0
        


</TABLE>
#### Claudius Shattuck and another, by guardian, Plaintiffs, v. George Bascom, Defendant.

Motion for new trial denied and judgment ordered for the plaintiff on the verdict. Opinion by

Bradley, J.;

Barker, J., concurs; Haight, J,, not sitting.
§ 821.57 Procedure on appeal. ( a ) *Time within which to file notice of appeal.* A party may appeal from a law judge's initial decision or appealable order by filing with the Board, and simultaneously serving on the other parties, a notice of appeal, within 2 days after the date on which the initial decision was orally rendered or the appealable order was served. The time limitations for the filing of documents respecting appeals governed by this subpart will not be extended by reason of the unavailability of the hearing transcript.
( b ) *Briefs and oral argument.* Each appeal in proceedings governed by this subpart must be perfected, within 5 days after the date on which the notice of appeal was filed, by the filing, and simultaneous service on the other parties, of a brief in support of the appeal. Any other party to the proceeding may file a brief in reply to the appeal brief within 7 days after the date on which the appeal brief was served on that party. A copy of the reply brief shall simultaneously be served on the appealing party and any other parties to the proceeding. Aside from the time limits specifically mandated by this paragraph, the provisions of §§ 821.7(a)(3) and 821.48 shall apply.
( c ) *Issues on appeal.* The provisions of § 821.49(a) and (b) shall apply in proceedings governed by this subpart.
( d ) *Petition for rehearing, reargument, reconsideration or modification of order.* The only petitions for rehearing, reargument, reconsideration or modification of an order which the Board will entertain in proceedings governed by this subpart are those based on the ground that new matter has been discovered. Such petitions must: ( 1 ) Set forth the new matter;
( 2 ) Contain affidavits of prospective witnesses, authenticated documents, or both, or an explanation of why such substantiation is unavailable; and
( 3 ) Contain a statement explaining why such new matter could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence prior to the date on which the evidentiary record closed.
[68 FR 22625, Apr. 29, 2003, as amended at 77 FR 63253, Oct. 16, 2012]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MARK LOCKWOOD, DOC #T45280, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1019 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 24, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge. Rupak R. Shah of Escobar & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Blain A. Goff, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0092

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL DUNNE,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until May 24, 2021, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

April 26 2021

04/26/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0092
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

    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 (0.9 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
June 23,20 10 

Secretary Hilda L. Solis 

U. S. Dcphent of Labor 

200 Constitution Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 202 10 

RE: Matertal Modscation Guidclin~s 

For Grandfathered Health Plans 

Dm Madam Secretary, 

Thoughout the contentious debate on health reform legislatiotl, thc Pmidcrrt assured us over and 

over that if we are happy with out amat health insurance plan, we are free ta rmin j t. In drafting the 

Patient Protection and Afforrtable Care Act, Congress acted to place substance on that pledge by 

providing that exlstlng plans would be grandfathered from many of the PPAC A provisions, baring 

any mated modifications. 

On June 1 4b, Trca~ury ad HHS released interim guidelines defming "matend mdfication". We 

find these ~llldelines reasonable with one cxc~ption: that a change of insurance carrier would 

constitute a material rnochf~cation. A business ltay have an opportunity to ruduce plan premiums 

and/or improvc claims service (either of which is of benefit to the employees) by changing carriers. 

Ths is a process followed by most tmployers each year at renewal time. They receive a renewal letter 

from the carrier listrng the prelnlum cha3e for the ncxt plm yyear. If unacceptable, the employer will 

then shw the market place for a better financial arrangement. If the plan benefits min the same, 

but the business simply changes the carrier- the funhng devlce - there is no logic, in our judgment, 

that this be deemed rnaterl.1 modification of the plan. Tke insurance carrier is immaterial to the 

ERISA mandated summary plan description 

Please consider that it will be vcry difficult for most businesses to remm in a graraathered state for 

any length of time due to this one element In the proposed regulations. As such we believe it sfiarply 

ddutes the President's promisc to the nation and circumvents the spirit of the law that Congress 

crafted. We ask that you remove changc-of-carrier fram the list of items that will triggkqps of 

Thomas Yearian 

Vice President 

tygr.ian@jhmil hlan icr.com 

11 330 Lakcfield Urivr, Rlrlg. I, Suilc. 100 L'rulu~h. (;~v~rgia 30007 

P.O. Bo* 80707 Atlanta, Ceur~ia .3(lj66-070- 

770.4:(~.17'0 Fax77U.476.36 51 ~?.vw.i~mi~h\~riirr.~orr~
Feb. 27: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq
 By CJTF - Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
  February 27, 2015 Release # 20150227FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **SOUTHWEST ASIA -**
 On Feb. 26, U.S. and Coalition military forces continued to attack ISIL
 terrorists in Syria, using attack, fighter, bomber and remotely piloted
 aircraft to conduct 20 airstrikes. Separately, U.S. and Coalition 
military forces conducted 11 airstrikes in Iraq, using attack, fighter 
and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists. All strikes took 
place between 8 a.m., Feb. 26, and 8 a.m., Feb. 27, local time. The following is a summary of the strikes conducted since the last press release: Syria*
       Near Al Hasakah, three airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units 
and destroyed an ISIL armored vehicle and an ISIL VBIED. *       Near Dayr az Zawr, an airstrike struck a crude oil collection point. *
       Near Kobani, 13 airstrikes struck an ISIL large tactical unit, 
eight ISIL tactical units, three ISIL fighting positions and destroyed 
21 ISIL fighting positions, two ISIL staging areas, two ISIL tanks and 
three ISIL vehicles. *       Near Tal Harris, three airstrikes struck three ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL checkpoint. Iraq*       Near Al Asad, three airstrikes struck three ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL building. *       Near Fallujah, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL building. *       Near Mosul, two airstrikes struck an ISIL checkpoint and an ISIL vehicle. *       Near Hit in Al Anbar Province, an airstrike stuck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle. *
       Near Ramadi, three airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and 
destroyed two ISIL buildings and an ISIL armored vehicle. *       Near Rawah, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL armored vehicle. Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned to base safely. The
 strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the 
operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose
 to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The 
destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the 
terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations. 
Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes in Iraq include 
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Netherlands, United
 Kingdom and the U.S. Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes 
in Syria include Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and
 the U.S.
#### Alfred S. Rosenbaum, Respondent, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Appellant. Henry C. Rosenbaum Respondent, v. The Same, Appellant.

Orders affirmed, with costs. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3396

___________________________

Detrick Lockridge

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Per Mar Security & Research Corp.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: May 6, 2015

Filed: May 13, 2015 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Detrick Lockridge appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary 1

judgment in his action against his former employer, in which he asserted claims of

The Honorable MichaelJ. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the District of Minnesota. 
unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude

that the district court’s decision was correct. See Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643

F.3d 1031, 1042-43 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (standard of review); see also Moody

v. Vozel, 771 F.3d 1093, 1097 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussing standards applicable to

claim of discriminatory termination), petition for cert. filed, –– U.S.L.W. –– (U.S.

Apr. 23, 2015) (No. 14-1271); Alvarez v. Des Moines Bolt Supply, Inc., 626 F.3d

410, 416-18 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussing standards applicable to claim of unlawful

retaliation).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
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

    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 (3.98 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
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HERIBERTO ARMENDARIZ,

 

 Appellant,

v.

MARIA C. FLORES,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00100-CV

Appeal from the

383rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2021DCV0897)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time within which to file 

the brief until July 2, 2022. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Veronica Teresa Lerma, the Appellee’s attorney, 

prepare the Appellee’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before July 2, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George W. Lake, Appellant.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Dykman, J., dissenting.
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   12-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          JUN-29-1997
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-29-1997
[CASH]                                         476,000
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                  701,000
[ALLOWANCES]                                    97,000
[INVENTORY]                                    254,000
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                             1,802,000
[PP&E]                                       9,595,000
[DEPRECIATION]                               3,942,000
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                               8,249,000
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                        3,375,000
[BONDS]                                      2,230,000
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                     4,746,000
[OTHER-SE]                                 (2,799,000)
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                 8,249,000
[SALES]                                     21,464,000
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                            21,724,000
[CGS]                                        5,737,000
[TOTAL-COSTS]                               18,690,000
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                             3,027,000
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                             453,000
[INCOME-PRETAX]                              (446,000)
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                          (446,000)
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                 (446,000)
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                   (0.21)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     September 30, 2000 Financial Data Schedule for USOL Holdings, Inc.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001035271
<NAME>                        USOL Holdings, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          6,065,310
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,467,164
<ALLOWANCES>                    (294,457)
<INVENTORY>                     1,184,513
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                9,206,505
<PP&E>                          22,599,040
<DEPRECIATION>                  (2,638,594)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  66,680,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           9,711,294
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     34,263,800
<COMMON>                        42,749,393
<OTHER-SE>                      (23,555,955)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    66,680,193
<SALES>                         7,427,343
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                7,427,343
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   20,075,824
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                81,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                200,358
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              143,623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (12,918,454)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (12,918,454)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (12,918,454)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (2.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (2.16)



</TABLE>
#### James Jones, Respondent, *v.*Charles Gamble, Appellant.

*Jones*v. Gamble, 140 App. Div. 733, affirmed.

(Argued May 21, 1912;

decided June 4, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 7, 1910, affirming a judgment in-favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his employer.

*George 8. McCartin*for appellant.

*Arthur T. Johnson*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ. Absent: Vann, J.