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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND THE STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              37
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    69601
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1850
<INVENTORY>                                      46179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                244276
<PP&E>                                         3687303
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1206607
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3063829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           182541
<BONDS>                                         684271
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       1065634
<OTHER-SE>                                       56871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3063829
<SALES>                                         638340
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                638340
<CGS>                                           137478
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   329013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               49518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 119248
<INCOME-TAX>                                     34987
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              84261
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     84261
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. 50027.

#### Protest 111467-K of S. W. Simon Leather Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

When the case was called for trial the examiner-testified that the merchandise is similar in all material respects, to that involved in *Rice*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 118, C. D. 807), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the claim at 5 percent under paragraph 1530 (a), as modified by T. D. 50504, was sustained.
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAFAR AFSHAR,

NO. CIV. S-04-1088 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO

POLICE DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; and SHERIFF

LOU BLANAS, individually and in his

official capacity as Sheriff of the

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of defendants’ motion to strike

plaintiff’s supplemental disclosures as well as plaintiff’s motion

to amend the scheduling order. The motion to strike was originally

set for oral argument on May 30, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. On May 15,

2006, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to strike as well

as the motion to amend the scheduling order. Given that the two

motions present identical questions and given that defendants need

an opportunity to file an opposition to the motion to amend the

scheduling order, the court CONTINUES oral argument on both motions

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 116 Filed 05/18/06 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

2

to June 12, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. Defendants shall file an opposition

to the motion to amend the scheduling order no later than May 30,

2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 17, 2006.

 /s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 116 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Amendment No. 1 to Capital Support Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 
 CAPITAL SUPPORT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Capital Support Agreement, is made as of the 15th day of July 2008, by and between NORTHERN
TRUST CORPORATION (the “Support Provider”) and NORTHERN INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS (the “Trust”), on behalf of its series the Diversified Assets Portfolio (the “Fund”). 
 WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a Capital Support Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of February 21, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions provided herein. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, capitalized terms shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement. 
 2. Section 3(c)(iii) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as set forth below: 
 (iii) 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 28, 2009. 
 3. If the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”) determines that the Maximum Contribution Amount, reduced by the amount of any Capital Contribution previously made by the Support Provider to the Fund,
will not be sufficient to maintain the Fund’s net asset value per share at no less than the Minimum Permissible NAV, the Board, at its option, may cause the Fund to sell the Eligible Notes. Such sale is a “sale” for purposes of
Section 1 (c) of the Agreement, which defines a “Contribution Event.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties caused this
Amendment No. 1 to the Capital Support Agreement to be executed this 15th day of July 2008. 








			
	NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ William R. Dodds, Jr.

	Name:	 	William R. Dodds, Jr.
	Title:	 	Treasurer
	
	 ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
 50 S. LaSalle
St.
 Chicago, IL 60603
 Attn: William R. Dodds,
Jr.

	
	 NORTHERN INSTITUTIONAL
 FUNDS FOR AND ON
BEHALF OF
 ITS DIVERSIFIED ASSETS PORTFOLIO

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Lloyd A. Wennlund

	Name:	 	Lloyd A. Wennlund
	Title:	 	President
	
	 ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
 50 S. LaSalle
St.
 Chicago, IL 60603
 Attn: Lloyd A.
Wennlund
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of K-tel International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip Kives, Chairman, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                   The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| By                                                       | /s/ PHILIP  KIVES |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------|
| Philip Kives                                             |
| *Chairman, Chief Executive Officer*                      |
| *(Principal executive officer), President  and Director* |
| October 14,  2003                                        |

 

1

----
List of external phone calls Katherine Hoag participated on during the AZ RH comment period

To: Tom Moore of WRAP Date: January 29, 2013 Subject: IMPROVE Data Katherine Hoag and Tom Moore had a phone conversation about work WRAP has done in investigating the causes of coarse mass and fine soil emissions. Tom sent additional information in a subsequent email on 1/29/13.
To: Tom Moore of WRAP Date: February 11, 2013 Subject: IMPROVE Data Ka therine Hoag and Tom Moore had a phone conversation covering the following topics:
 Differences between IMPROVE data from different websites  Tools to extract monitoring data on the WRAP TSS website  Differences in datasets on the WRAP TSS website  Other WRAP documents on the causes of haze To: Ryan Templeton ( ADEQ) Date: February 2013 Subject: Trend analysis method Katherine Hoag returned call to discuss ADEQ’s questions about alternate trend analysis methods to show sensitivity of RHR methods to interannual events. No specific advice of what method to use or n ot use was given. Katherine did suggest that whatever method is chosen, the agency should be clear about the assumptions inherent in the statistical methods and any strengths or weaknesses it has given a certain type of dataset, and that the method should be well cited in their submittal.
### C o ur t o f App e al s, S tate of Michi g an 

### ORDER People of Ml v Dukota L ynn hananaquct Docket Nos. 3 18 251; 3 18252 ; 318378; 320342 l.C Nos. 10-003343-F H : 12

- 003755- FH : 1 2-0037 4 9-f H ; 13-003852-FJ-I llcnry William Saad Presiding Jud ge D

o n ald S. Owens Kirs ten Frank Kelly

Judges On it s own moti o n , the Cour t o n.l e rs that the unpubli s he d , per curiam opinion in thi s case, which was issued March 1 7, 20 15. be ame nd ed to co rrec t a c l e ri cal e r ror . rhc thi rd sen t enc e of the seco nd paragraph ( bo rt o m of page I ) shall re ad : ··rn th at month. defendant accompanied her friend to a doctor·s o ffice, at wh ich her fr i end's c hildren had an appointment." In all ot her respects. the Ma r c h 17, 20 1 5 op ini on remain s unchan ged.

A true co py e ntered and ce rtilied by Jerome W. Z imm er .Ir. , Chief C l erk, on 

# MAR 3 0 2015
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-1310

FRANK CAMOSCIO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

ROGER DEMINICO,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Torruella, Chief Judge,

Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.

Frank Camoscio on brief pro se.

Michael A. Goldsmith, Assistant Corporation Counsel, and

Merita A. Hopkins, Corporation Counsel, on Motion for Summary

Disposition, for appellee.

December 5, 2000
-2-

Per Curiam. Having thoroughly reviewed the record

and the parties' submissions on appeal, we affirm the

dismissal of the appellant's complaint on the ground that it

is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Costs to

appellee. See Local Rule 27(c); Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(2).
No. 50013.

#### Protests 964576-G, etc., of Hollander Bead & Novelty Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the beads m question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 867), certain of the items were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 and others at 20 percent under the same paragraph as modified by T. D. 49458. The protests were sustained to this extent.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement in Form S-3 (No. 33-35624) and
Registration Statements of Forms S-8 (No. 2-90929), (No. 33-41181), (No.
33-41295), (No. 33-54027), (No. 333-14067), (No. 333-08725), (No. 333-08727),
(No. 33-58981), (No. 333-14069), (No. 333-14071), (No. 333-22109) and (No.
333-08723) of Kaneb Services, Inc. of our report dated February 20, 1997
appearing on page F-1 of this Form 10-K.


PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 24, 1997
1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1791

___________

Alfonso A. Waldron, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

The Boeing Company; International *

Association of Machinists and * [UNPUBLISHED]

Aerospace Workers, Lodge 837, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 6, 2005

Filed: May 11, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alfonso A. Waldron, Jr., appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his action claiming employment discrimination and Labor Management

Relations Act violations, by his former employer and his union. Having carefully

reviewed the record and considered Waldron’s arguments, see Jacob-Mua v.
-2-

Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review), we find no basis

for reversal. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot the

Boeing Company’s motion to strike. 

______________________________
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4228 

To redesignate the Cottonwood Visitor Center at Joshua Tree National Park 

as the ‘‘Senator Dianne Feinstein Visitor Center’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Ms. BUTLER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Cottonwood Visitor Center at Joshua 

Tree National Park as the ‘‘Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Visitor Center’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF THE COTTONWOOD VIS4 ITOR CENTER AT JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL 

5 PARK AS THE ‘‘SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN 

6 VISITOR CENTER’’. 

7 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The Cottonwood Visitor Cen8 ter at Joshua Tree National Park shall be known and des9 ignated as the ‘‘Senator Dianne Feinstein Visitor Center’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4228 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the visitor center referred to in subsection (a) 

4 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Senator Dianne 

5 Feinstein Visitor Center’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-50075 of Kansas Gas and Electric Company on Form S-3 of our report datedMarch 15, 2004, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the following changes in accounting principle: the Company changed its method of accounting for asset retirement obligations in 2003 andaccounting for derivative contracts and hedging activities in 2001) appearing in this annual report on Form 10-K of Kansas Gas and Electric Company. 

 

Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Kansas City, Missouri 

March 15, 2004
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 D0 39 5 . RODOLFO VEGA BARRI ENTOS v . THE STATE.

Ro d ol fo Veg a Barri en to s p l ead ed g u i l t y i n Sep t em b er 2 0 0 9 t o arm ed ro b b ery ,

t wo co u n t s o f ag grav at ed as s au l t

, hi jack i n g a m o to r v eh i cl e, p o s s es si on o f a weap o n

d u ri n g t h e co m

m i s s i o n o f cri m e, an d gi v i ng a fal s e n am e. In Jan u ary 2 0 1 9

, Barri en t o s

fi led a m o t i o n fo r o u t -o f-t i m e ap peal

. Th e t r i a l c o urt d en i ed t h e m o t io n , an d

Barri en t o s fi l ed t h i s t i m el y ap pl i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i onary ap p eal

. Becau s e Barri en t o s ’ s

ap p li cat io n i ncl u d ed a co p y o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er d at ed Feb ru ary 1 8

, 2 0 1 9

, b u t n ot

a s t am p ed “ fi l ed ” co p y , we di rect ed Barri en t o s o n M arch 25

, 2 0 1 9 t o s u p p l em en t h i s

ap p li cat io n wi t h a s t am

p “ fi l ed ” co p y o f t h e o rd er wi th i n t en d ay s

. Ho wev er, th e d en i al o f a m o t i o n fo r a n o u t

- o f -t i m e ap p eal i s d i rect l y

ap p eal ab l e. Lu n sf

o r d v. S t a t e , 2 3 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 9 6

, 6 9 6 (5 1 5 SE2 d 1 9 8 ) (1 9 9 9 ); s ee al s o

W et h er in g t o n v. S t a t e , 2 96 Ga. 4 5 1 (7 6 9 SE2 d 53 ) (2 0 15 ) (ad d res s i n g m eri t s o f d i rect

ap p eal fro m d en i al o f m ot i o n fo r o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal fo l l o w i n g g u i l ty p l ea).

Acco rd in g ly

, t h i s ap p l icat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal i s h ereb y GRANTED p u rs u an t

t o O CGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). Barri en t o s s h al l h av e ten d ay s fro m t h e dat e o f t h is ord er t o fi l e

h i s n o t i ce o f ap p eal i n t h e t ri al co u rt

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (g ). Th e cl erk o f t h e t ri al co u rt April 18, 2019i s DIRECTED t o i n cl u d e a co p y o f t h i s o rd er i n t h e reco rd t ran sm i t t ed t o t h e Co u rt

o f Ap peal s

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 04/18/2019
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

RICHARD GEORGE CUNNINGHAM,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 503 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at September 30, 1999 and the Statement of Operations for the
three months ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                 253
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          10,275
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       10,528
<PP&E>                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         15,034,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  431,788
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                               12,123
<OTHER-SE>                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           15,034,123
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       0
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          23,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (23,803)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           (23,803)
<EPS-BASIC>                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0



</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 10383)

Entry No. 5257, etc.

#### Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 4, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Quilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise which is the subject of the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule B, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of phonograph records exported from Mexico after December 1, 1959.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that phonograph records are not on the list of articles published in T.D. 54521 and are subject to appraisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927 — 84th Congress 2nd Session).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, *470in 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 the prices shown on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement listed in Schedule B are hereby submitted on this stipulation.

On. the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the phonograph records in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the prices shown in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.