alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10727)

#### Cameron Iron Works, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 12993, etc.

*528(Decided April 21, 1964)

*Stein & Shostak (S. Richard Shostak*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General *(Sheila N. Ziff,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties herein:

> Mb. Shostak: Plaintiff offers to stipulate that the merchandise covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement consolidated herein consists of box socket wrenches exported from England during the period from 1959 to 1961.

> That on the dates of exportations of said merchandise to the United States, the prices at the time of exportation at which similar merchandise was freely sold, or in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers- and coverings of whatever nature, and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States were as follows:

> Item 7959-1,14 shillings, 7% pence.

> Item 7959-2,15 shillings, 4% pence.

> Item 7959-3,15 shillings, 4% pence.

> Item 7959-4,19 shillings, 8% pence.

> Item 7959-5,17 shillings, 10% pence.

> Item 7959-6, 26 shillings, 4% pence.

> Item 7959-7, 34 shillings, % pence.

> Item 7959-8, 37 shillings, 2 pence.

> Item 7959-9, 30 shillings, 11% pence.

> Item 7959-10, 39 shillings, 4% pence.

> Item 7959-11,11 shillings, 11 pence.

> Item 7959-12, 30 shillings, 3 pence.

> Mbs. Ziff : I have conferred with the Appraiser, and so stipulate.

> Mb. Shostak : And plaintiff further offers to stipulate that all of the merchandise covered by all the appeals for reappraisement consolidated herein is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521.

> Mbs. Ziff : So agree.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question and that such values for the involved items were as follows:

> Item 7959-1,14 shillings, 7% pence.

> Item 7959-2,15 shillings, 4% pence.

> Item 7959-3,15 shillings, 4% pence.

> Item 7959-4,19 shillings, 8% pence.

> Item 7959-5,17 shillings, 10% pence.

> Item 7959-6, 26 shillings, *4%*pence.

> Item 7959-7, 34 shillings, *%*pence.

> *529Item 7959-8, 37 shillings, 2 pence.

> Item 7959-9, 30 shillings, 11% pence.

> Item 7959-10, 39 shillings, 4% pence.

> Item 7959-11,11 shillings, 11 pence.

> Item 7959-12, 30 shillings, 3 pence.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
### Potential errors associated with stage-discharge relations for selected streamflow-gaging stations, Maricopa County, Arizona

By: Anne C. Tillery**Jeff V. PhillipsJoseph P. Capesius

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wri004224

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report** 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Potential errors were derived for individual discharge measurements and stage-discharge relations for 17 streamflow-gaging stations in Maricopa County. Information presented primarily consists of stage and discharge data that were used to develop the stage-discharge relations that were in effect for water year 1998. Accuracy of the discharge measurements directly relate to accuracy of the stage-discharge relation developed for each site. Stage-discharge relations generally are developed using direct measurements of stage and discharge, indirect measurements of peak discharge, and theoretical weir and culvert computations. Accuracy of current-meter measurements of discharge (direct measurements) depends on factors such as the number of subsections in the measurement, stability of the channel, changes in flow conditions, and accuracy of the equipment. Accuracy of indirect measurements of peak discharge is determined by the accuracy of discharge coefficients and flow type selected for the computations. The accuracy of indirect peak-discharge computations generally is less than the accuracy associated with current-meter measurements.

Current-meter measurements, indirect measurements of discharge, weir and culvert computations, and step-backwater computations are graphically represented on plots of the stage-discharge relations. Potential errors associated with the discharge measurements at selected sites are depicted as error bars on the plots.

Potential errors derived for discharge measurements at 17 sites range from 5 to 25 percent. Errors generally are greater for measurements of large flows in channels having unstable controls using indirect methods.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         6,458,209
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                        3,527,404
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          3,648,539
<EQUITIES>                                     862,750
<MORTGAGE>                                   1,049,464
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   76,646
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              13,168,125
<CASH>                                         122,474
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           1,449,613
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         834,764
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,478,012
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             12,433,027
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             34,149
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  53,555
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          200,843
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                563,188
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,000
<COMMON>                                        89,016
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,067,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,478,012
<PREMIUMS>                                     810,040
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            540,805
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              48,509
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 170,062
<BENEFITS>                                     842,296
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     27,687
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           (94,143)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                380,762
<INCOME-TAX>                                   125,449
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            255,313
<DISCONTINUED>                                  18,541
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   273,854
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.81
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-17-00609-CV

Marta ARREDONDO,

Appellant

v.

TECHSERV CONSULTING AND TRAINING, LTD., T&D Solutions, LLC, and AEP Texas 

Central Company,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-08-16922-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order granting appellee 

T&D Solutions, LLC’s traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment is AFFIRMED 

as to the claims for negligence per se and gross negligence and REVERSED as to appellant’s 

negligence claim, and that claim is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. The 

trial court’s order granting appellee AEP Texas Central Company’s motions for traditional and noevidence summary judgment is REVERSED, and appellant’s claims against appellee AEP Texas 

Central Company for negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence are REMANDED to the 

trial court for further proceedings. The trial court’s order granting Techserv Consulting and 

Training, LTD.’s traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Costs of this appeal are taxed against the party incurring the same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.4.

SIGNED September 26, 2018.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Roger K. Brooks, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AmerUs Group Co.,certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of AmerUs Group Co.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986]; c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Dated: August 6, 2004     By /s/ Roger K. Brooks      Roger K. Brooks   Chairman and   Chief Executive Officer   AmerUs Group Co.
42
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from James River
Corporation of Virginia's December 31, 1995 Form 10-K financial statements and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000053117
<NAME> JAMES RIVER CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                              66
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      847
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        821
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1871
<PP&E>                                            6181
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7259
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1099
<BONDS>                                           2503
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        740
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                        1505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7259
<SALES>                                           6800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  6800
<CGS>                                             5259
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    52
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    237
<INCOME-TAX>                                       109
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                126
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       126
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .81
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

K.J. BRUBAKER, M.C. HOLIFIELD, S.A. DOMINGUEZ

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

KEVIN M. L. SCHAFER

LANCE CORPORAL (E-3), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201500269

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 14 April 2015.

Military Judge: LtCol E.A Harvey, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, 3d MAW, Marine 

Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Maj J.A Atkinson,

USMC.

For Appellant: LCDR Ryan C. Mattina, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr Brian K. Keller, Esq.

31 December 2015

---------------------------------------------------

OPINION OF THE COURT 

---------------------------------------------------

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 For the Court 

 R.H. TROIDL 

 Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet at December 31, 1998 and the Statement of Income for the year ended
December 31, 1998 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-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              41
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,903
<INVENTORY>                                     43,121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               189,177
<PP&E>                                       3,653,092
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,125,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,057,971
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          148,328
<BONDS>                                        684,167
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,065,634
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,057,971
<SALES>                                        648,379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               648,379
<CGS>                                          149,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  458,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                148,736
<INCOME-TAX>                                    44,971
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            103,765
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,765
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Ira Wayne MADISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Keith William DeBlasio; Donald Wells; S. Batts; D. Wilson; D. McBride; John Harris; Eric Hobbs; Nash; Donald Wayne Peery; Kevin A. Eggleston; Steven C. Whisenant; Walter Epps; Wesley Hammond; Clarence W. Terry; Thomas Alexander; Derrick K. Jones, Plaintiffs, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Deputy Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Ron Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; W.P. Rogers, Regional Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; C.D. Larson, Warden, Lunenburg Correctional Center; Carol F. Wallace, Associate Warden of Operations, Lunenburg Correctional Center; Jerry R. Townsend, Major, Lunenburg Correctional Center; sued in their individual and official capacities; Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. Kareem Harris, Movant. Ira Wayne Madison, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Gene Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; David A. Gar-raghty, Warden, G.R.C.C.; G.R.C.C. Staff and Security, Defendants-Appel-lees. Kareem Harris, Movant.

Nos. 00-7667, 00-7668.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 29, 2001.

Decided June 18, 2001.

*150Ira Wayne Madison, pro se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellees.

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Ira Wayne Madison appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in his civil action challenging Division Operating Procedure 864, a prison grooming policy requiring that male inmates’ hair not be more than one inch in thickness/depth and prohibiting beards. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion, along with Madison’s allegations of error, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *DeBlasio v. Johnson,*and *Madison v. Angelone,*128 F.Supp.2d 315 (E.D.Va. 2000). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 23

                                            
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
February 8, 1999 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Jefferson-Pilot Corporation,
and our report included in the following paragraph with respect to the
financial statement schedules, in the following Registration Statements:

   Form S-8, Nos. 2-36778, 2-56410, and 33-30530, pertaining to the
     Long Term Stock Incentive Plan and predecessor stock plans, and
     outstanding effective registration statements on Form S-16    
     included in such S-8 filings;
   Form S-8, No. 33-56369, pertaining to the JP TeamShare Plan;
   Form S-8, No. 33-64137, pertaining to the Non-Employee Directors'   
     Stock Option Plan;  
   Form S-3, No. 33-63521, pertaining to debt securities and warrants
     to purchase securities.
                                       
Our audit also included the financial statement schedules of Jefferson-Pilot
Corporation listed in Item 14(a).  These schedules are the responsibility of
the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based
on our audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedules referred to
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as
a whole, present fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.

                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Greensboro, North Carolina
March 24, 1999