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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS .
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,320
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  379,872
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,274
<INVENTORY>                                    233,464
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               618,890
<PP&E>                                          71,125
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,817
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 692,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          276,766
<BONDS>                                        239,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,000
<COMMON>                                           449
<OTHER-SE>                                     155,649
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   692,985
<SALES>                                      1,816,504
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,995,191
<CGS>                                        1,635,653
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,754,228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,764
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,616
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,145
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,471
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61


</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT.

#### Lookman agt. Ellis and others.

*Metra allowance—when not granted.*

Where, after an action of foreclosure was at issue and had been noticed for trial, the defendant tendered the amount of the mortgage, interest and costs, a statement of which had been rendered by the plaintiff’s attorney and the tender being accepted, it is too late thereafter to apply for an extra allowance. Had the tender been conditionally received it might be otherwise.

*New York Mre amd Marins Insurance Gorrvpa/ny*agt. *Browned*(9 *How. Pros. B.,*398) distinguished.

*Special Term, December,*1879.

Van Vorst, *J*.

This is an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage; an answer was interposed and the cause noticed for *101trial. The case was on the calendar for several terms, but its trial was postponed for various reasons. Finally one of the defendants, the owner oE the mortgaged premises, called upon the plaintiff’s attorney and asked for a statement of the plaintiff’s claim, and stated that he was prepared to pay up the mortgage; he asked for the amount of the plaintiff’s mortgage, and interest and costs to date.

The plaintiff’s attorney prepared such statement, which included the costs of the action, amounting to $153.65. This amount the defendant tendered to the plaintiff’s attorney, with the charges for satisfying the mortgage. The tender was accepted and a satisfaction-piece was delivered.

The plaintiff’s attorney now asks for an extra allowance, in addition to the costs which have been received. I think the application comes too late. The plaintiff’s attorney alleges in his affidavit, that by the settlement it was left to be thereafter determined as to whether the plaintiff was or not entitled to an allowance in this action.

But this is denied by the defendants’ attorney, who swears *“*that the tender was for the full amount of their statement of principal, interest and costs in full to date of tender.”

There has been no judgment in the action, and none can now be obtained in the plaintiff’s favor as the mortgage is satisfied of record.

In the case of *New York Fire and Marine Insurance Company*agt. *Brownell and others*(9 *Howard Prac.,*398) the tender appears to have been declined and the proceedings went to judgment, and the court held that, notwithstanding the defendant had tendered the amount of the mortgage and costs, the plaintiff was not bound to accept it, and made an allowance in addition. But that is not this case.

It may be that the tender might have been accepted conditionally, leaving the plaintiff’s right to an allowance in addition to costs to be thereafter determined. But it does not appear that such matter was left, through the understanding of both parties, open.

*102The plaintiff’s claim upon the mortgage is gone and there is nothing left, it appears to me, of a real nature upon which the court can act in granting an allowance.

The motion for the allowance is denied, without costs, and an order may be made, as asked for, that the action be discontinued as to all the defendants, without costs to them, or either of them.

I do not think the defendant Ellis, upon the facts appearing, is entitled to costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOUND ON PAGES
18 AND 19 OF THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR OF 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,565
<SECURITIES>                                    13,790
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                       822
<INVENTORY>                                     25,573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,925
<PP&E>                                          22,475
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,396
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,935
<SALES>                                        117,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,864
<CGS>                                           60,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,230
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,841
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,790
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,051
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,051
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
        

</TABLE>
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06-15-00026-CV

Robert Yurik

v.

Ernestine Phillips

(No. 80896 IN 196TH DISTRICT COURT OF HUNT COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

INDIGENT

FILING

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51 FEE

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

$25.00

$100.00

$50.00

$20.00

$105.00

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

UNKNOWN

ROBERT S. YURIK

ROBERT S. YURIK

ROBERT S. YURIK

ROBERT S. YURIK

ROBERT S. YURIK

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE 

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct 

copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, 

as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 

witness my hand and the Seal of 

the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Sixth District of Texas, this 

December 4, 2015.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___________________________

Deputy
From: jpalmquist@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:18:12 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Judith Palmquist

Canoga Park, CA 91304
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; NHLBI Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         October 26-27, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge I, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Fungai Chanetsa, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 206-B, Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 402-9394.                         *fungai.chanetsa@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-19907 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
From: mdonna7444@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:37:29 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Donna Marenger

Rock, MI 49880
No. 361, Misc.

Petitioner *pro se. Louis F. McCabe*for respondent.

#### Melton *v.*Pennsylvania.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Certiorari denied.
From: barbpop@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:51:00 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Barbara Popineau

Antioch, CA 94509
From: rudydar555@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:40:45 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rudy Santos

Tracy, CA 95304
From: pspinrad@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:48:01 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Phoebe Spinrad

Columbus, OH 43203
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20255

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUMALDO ALFONSO DEL VALLE,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-91-159-2

- - - - - - - - - -

March 1, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rumaldo Alfonso Del Valle appeals from the denial of a

motion over which the district court had no jurisdiction. See 18

U.S.C. § 3573; United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 600 (1994); United States v.

Segler, 37 F.3d 1131, 1136-37 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we

AFFIRM.

AFFIRMED.