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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001051830
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                   412,372
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               412,372
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 412,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    400,000
<COMMON>                                        12,372
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   412,372
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,340
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,340
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,340
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,340
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
```
Health Insurance: California Public Employees' Alliance Has Reduced
Recent Premium Growth (Letter Report, 11/22/93, GAO/HRD-94-40).

As part of the ongoing debate over health care reform, policymakers have
been weighing the pros and cons of alternative ways to purchase care.
The administration's health care reform package and other recent reform
proposals call for purchasing cooperatives to manage competition among
health care plans.  One frequently cited example of a successful
purchasing cooperative is the California Public Employees' Retirement
System (CalPERS), which negotiates health premiums for many public
employees in California.  This report analyzes CalPERS' effectiveness in
controlling health care costs for its members.  GAO (1) examines
CalPERS' cost-containment record, (2) identifies factors that have
contributed to the trend in its premium rates, (3) assesses the impact
of CalPERS' cost-containment efforts on its members' benefits, and (4)
discusses the applicability of its Health Benefits Program as a model of
managed competition--a system under which large purchasing cooperatives
contract with a variety of competing health plans on behalf of employers
and individuals.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HRD-94-40
     TITLE:  Health Insurance: California Public Employees' Alliance Has 
             Reduced Recent Premium Growth
      DATE:  11/22/93
   SUBJECT:  Health insurance cost control
             Insurance premiums
             Employee benefit plans
             Health maintenance organizations
             Fringe benefit costs
             State employees
             Municipal employees
             State programs
IDENTIFIER:  CalPERS Health Benefits Program (CA)
             CalPERS PERSCare Plan (CA)
             CalPERS PERSChoice Plan (CA)
             California
             National Health Care Reform Initiative
             Clinton Health Care Plan
             Health Security Act
             
************************************************************************

We regret that the full text of this item is presently unavailable.

See the GAO FAQ - Section 2.0 for printed copy ordering information.
The FAQ is automatically retrieved with all WAIS search results or 
can be obtained by sending e-mail to: [email protected]
```
Exhibit 24





AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY


POWER OF ATTORNEY





City of Minneapolis





State of Minnesota





Each of the undersigned as a director of Ameriprise Certificate Company, a face-amount certificate company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, hereby constitutes and appoints Abu M. Arif, Janet C. Langner, David K. Stewart, Jason Bartylla, Tara W. Tilbury and Megan E. Garcy or any one of them, as his or her attorney-in-fact and agent, to sign for him or her in his or her name, place and stead any and all registration statements and amendments thereto (with all exhibits and other documents required or desirable in connection therewith) that may be prepared from time to time in connection with said Company’s existing or future face-amount certificate products – whether pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the Investment Company Act of 1940 or otherwise – and periodic and other reports, and amendments thereto, including those on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and Form 8-K, as required pursuant to provisions of applicable federal securities laws, and any necessary or appropriate filings with states or other jurisdictions, and grants to any or all of them the full power and authority to do and perform each and every act required or necessary or appropriate in connection with such signatures or filings.





Signed on this 28 th day of February, 2018











/s/ Karen M. Bohn


Karen M. Bohn











/s/ Lorna P. Geason


Lorna P. Gleason











/s/ Jean B. Keffeler


Jean B. Keffeler











/s/ Robert McReavy


Robert McReavy








#336437
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                 
                  INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                                
The Board of Directors
Inter-Regional Financial Group, Inc.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement No.  33-58069,  Registration  Statement  No.  33-54223,
Registration Statement  No. 33-54907,  Registration Statement No.
33-59426,  Registration   Statement  No.  33-39182,  Registration
Statement  No.   33-25979,  post-effective   amendment  No. 1  to
Registration Statement No. 33-13068, post-effective amendment No.
2  to   Registration  Statement   No.  33-10243,   post-effective
amendment No.  2 to  Registration Statement  No. 33-10242,  post-
effective amendment  No. 4 to Registration Statement No. 2-90634,
post-effective amendment  No. 8  to Registration Statement No. 2-
61514, post-effective  amendment No. 11 to Registration Statement
No. 2-57759,  post-effective amendment  No.  15  to  Registration
Statement No.  2-53289 and  post-effective amendment  No.  16  to
Registration Statement No. 2-51150, on Form S-8 of Inter-Regional
Financial Group,  Inc., and  subsidiaries  of  our  report  dated
February 7,  1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Inter-Regional Financial  Group,  Inc.  and  subsidiaries  as  of
December 31,  1995 and  1994, and  the consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders'  equity and  cash flows and the related
financial statement  schedule for each of the years in the three-
year period  ended December 31, 1995, which report appears in the
December 31,  1995 Annual  Report on  Form 10-K of Inter-Regional
Financial Group, Inc.

                                  KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 26, 1996
No. 50425.

#### Protests 13387-K, etc., of Davies, Turner & Co. et al. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dog food similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 175, C. A. D. 304), which record was incorporated herein, the protests were sustained as claimed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE EIDEN,

NO. CIV. S-04-977 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

HOME DEPOT USA, INC., dba

HOME DEPOT #6609; and HD

PROPERTIES OF MARYLAND,

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court are the parties’ motions for crosssummary judgment, to be heard on December 2, 2005 on the court’s

Law and Motion Calendar. Pursuant to Local Rule 56-260, 

“any party opposing a motion for summary judgment or

summary adjudication shall reproduce the itemized facts

in the Statement of Undisputed Facts and admit those

facts that are undisputed and deny those that are

disputed, including with each denial a

citation to the particular portions of any pleading,

affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission

or other document relied upon in support of that

denial.”

////

Case 2:04-cv-00977-LKK -CMK Document 50 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1 It appears that defendants have filed a “Response SUF,” but

the court notes that it had difficulty finding this document

because in contravention of the Local Rules, the Response SUF was

filed concurrently with defendants’ reply brief, rather than with

the opposition brief. 

2

Although plaintiff has filed an opposition brief, he has

failed to file a “Response SUF,” or a document which reproduces the

itemized facts in defendants’ statement of undisputed facts and

where plaintiff admits or denies those facts.1 The court hereby

orders that plaintiff submit the “Response SUF” no later than

Friday, November 18, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. Should plaintiff fail to

submit the Response SUF by the date and time specified above, the

court shall consider the facts contained in defendants’ statement

of undisputed facts conceded.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 15, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00977-LKK -CMK Document 50 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001052102
<NAME> C2,INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       4,781,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,484,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   296,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,955,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,925,000
<PP&E>                                     110,942,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,909,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             119,584,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,609,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,410,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,419,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,829,000
<SALES>                                     10,618,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,007,000
<CGS>                                        7,616,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,507,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,266,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,205,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   443,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            440,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   440,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

April 18, 1960

No. 64089.

protests 310007-K and 58/13122 (New York).

#### H. Rosenhirsch Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Indiana Gas Company, Inc.'s consolidated financial statements as of
September 30, 1998, and for the fiscal year then ended and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      567,105
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          48,356
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        17,693
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 633,154
<COMMON>                                       142,995
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             97,354
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 240,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           181,975
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              33,705
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   10,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 167,125
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  633,154
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      465,644
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            17,449
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     401,944
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     419,393
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         46,251
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 866
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  47,117
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        16,234
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,883
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   30,883
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        27,250
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       13,335
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          60,128
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-41103 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. BENIGNO AYALA-JUARE Z, also known as Benigno Juarez-Ayalanull also known as Benigno Juarez Ayala, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:11-CR-330-1
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Benigno Ayala-Juarez (Ay ala) appeals the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and to possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. Each count charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Ayala ar g u es that under United States v. Berry , 977 F.2d 915, 919-20 (5th Cir. 1992), his conviction and sentence on one of his counts must be vacated because his two convictions and sentences are multiplicitous and violate U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D July 2, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-41103 Document: 00511907088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2012No. 11-41103

the Double Jeopardy Cl a u s e . The government agrees and has filed an Unopposed Motion for Summary Remand in lieu of Filing Appellee’s Brief. The gov e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n i s G RAN T E D

. Ay ala’s sentences are VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for dismissal o f t h e multiplicitous count and for resentencin g on the count selected by the government. See Berry , 977 F.2d at 919-20; United States v. Osunegbu , 822 F.2d 472, 481 (5th Cir. 198 7).

2 Case: 11-41103 Document: 00511907088 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2012
Re: Miami Fort Power Station, ID No. 1431350093 

MATS Rule Compliance Extension for Unit 6- Final Quarterly Status Update 

Dear Mr. Beekman: 

On December 12, 2013, Ohio EPA's Division of Air Pollution Control (DAPC) approved a 

request by Duke Energy Kentucky (DEK) to extend the Mercury and Air Taxies (MATS) Rule 

compliance date for Unit 6 at Miami Fort Power Station by 47 days, to June 1, 2015. DAPC's 

approval directed DEK to submit quarterly status update reports regarding this extension within 

15 days after the end of calendar quarters. 

Though DEK remains the owner of Miami Fort Unit 6, responsibility for its operation shifted from 

Duke Energy to Dynegy on April 2, 2015. This final quarterly status update report is provided by 

Dynegy. 

During the second quarter of 2015, DEK continued to include Miami Fort Unit 6 as an eligible 

resource in its Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR) plan to meet its FRR capacity obligation, 

and offered it on a day-ahead basis into the PJM energy market until May 31, 2015. 

Consistent with the terms of DAPC's compliance extension, operation of Miami Fort Unit 6 has 

ceased, effective June 1, 2015. 

Please contact me at 513-467-5885 (Chris.Osterbrink@Dynegy.com) or Larry Waite at 618-343-

7828 (Larry.Waite@Dynegy.com) with any questions regarding this report. 

Sincerely, 

1CJ:~,u-~ 

Chris Osterbrink 

Managing Director, Plant Operations 

Miami Fort Power Station 

cc: Robert Hodanbosi, Ohio EPA, DAPC, Central Office 

Brad Miller, Southwest Ohio Air Quality Agency 

J. Michael Geers, Duke Energy
**Exhibit 24(a)**

 

AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

City of Minneapolis

 

State of Minnesota

 

Each of the undersigned as a director of Ameriprise Certificate Company, a face-amount certificate company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, hereby constitutes and appoints Abu M. Arif, Ross P. Palacios, David K. Stewart, Scott R. Plummer and Tara W. Tilbury or any one of them, as his or her attorney-in-fact and agent, to sign for him or her in his or her name, place and stead any and all registration statements and amendments thereto (with all exhibits and other documents required or desirable in connection therewith) that may be prepared from time to time in connection with said Company’s existing or future face-amount certificate products — whether pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the Investment Company Act of 1940 or otherwise — and periodic and other reports, and amendments thereto, including those on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and Form 8-K, as required pursuant to provisions of applicable federal securities laws, and any necessary or appropriate filings with states or other jurisdictions, and grants to any or all of them the full power and authority to do and perform each and every act required or necessary or appropriate in connection with such signatures or filings.

 

Signed on this 27th day of February, 2013

 

 
| /s/   Karen M. Bohn       |         |
|---------------------------|--------------|
| Karen   M. Bohn           |         |
|                      |         |
|                      |         |
| /s/   Lorna P. Gleason    |         |
| Lorna   P. Gleason        |         |
|                      |         |
|                      |         |
| /s/   Jean B. Keffeler    |         |
| Jean   B. Keffeler        |         |
|                      |         |
|                      |         |
| /s/   Robert McReavy      |         |
| Robert   McReavy          |         |
|                      |         |
|                      |         |
| Document   Number: 330348 | Version:   1 |
|                           |              |  |

 

----
No. 46088.

#### Protests 48464-K, etc., of H. P. Lambert Co. et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner

v. AARON MATTHEW BRADLEY, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 315 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 23rd day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.