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

<ARTICLE>                                    5
<LEGEND>                        10K-MARCH-2000
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1
<CURRENCY>                                   0
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      APR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                              1
<CASH>                               1,800,000
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                       13,961,000
<ALLOWANCES>                           403,000
<INVENTORY>                          4,390,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    21,117,000
<PP&E>                               8,696,000
<DEPRECIATION>                       6,590,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      27,808,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               17,483,000
<BONDS>                                      0
<COMMON>                               560,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                          (3,600,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        27,808,000
<SALES>                             53,530,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    53,530,000
<CGS>                               51,183,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       53,279,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       (55,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    (2,250,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   1,066,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      1,490,000
<INCOME-TAX>                           105,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  1,385,000
<DISCONTINUED>                         928,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                         2,313,000
<EPS-BASIC>                             1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                             1.15

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2346 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2346

 To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to modify 
            the definition of the term ``biobased product''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2012

 Mr. Pryor (for himself and Mr. Blunt) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to modify 
            the definition of the term ``biobased product''.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Forest Products Fairness Act of 
2012''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BIOBASED PRODUCT.

    Section 9001 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(7 U.S.C. 8101) is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
            ``(4) Biobased product.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The term `biobased product' 
                means a product determined by the Secretary to be a 
                commercial or industrial product (other than food or 
                feed) that is--
                            ``(i) composed, in whole or in significant 
                        part, of biological products, including 
                        renewable domestic agricultural materials and 
                        forestry materials; or
                            ``(ii) an intermediate ingredient or 
                        feedstock.
                    ``(B) Inclusion.--The term `biobased product', with 
                respect to forestry materials, includes forest products 
                that meet biobased content requirements, 
                notwithstanding market maturity.'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through (14) as 
        paragraphs (10) through (15), respectively; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
            ``(9) Forest product.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The term `forest product' means 
                a product made from materials derived from the practice 
                of forestry or the management of growing timber.
                    ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `forest product' 
                includes--
                            ``(i) pulp, paper, paperboard, pellets, and 
                        wood products; and
                            ``(ii) any recycled products derived from 
                        forest materials.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2088 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2088

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently double the 
 amount of start-up expenses entrepreneurs can deduct from their taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 9, 2012

Mr. Rockefeller introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently double the 
 amount of start-up expenses entrepreneurs can deduct from their taxes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Start-up Support Act 
of 2012''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT DOUBLING OF START-UP EXPENSES DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 195(b)(1)(A) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000'', and
            (2) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$60,000''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (b) of section 195 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (3).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after 
December 31, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
No. 47099.

#### Protest 34116-K of F. W. Woolworth Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Numerous witnesses were called in this case on behalf of the plaintiff. It appeared from the testimony that the articles are used by adults and consist of the ordinary snake blowout, airplanes, ferris wheels, squirrel in cage, etc.; that they are used at New Year’s and other parties and given as favors; and that they are usually sold as single items at retail. No evidence was introduced by the Government. It was agreed between counsel that the exhibits in question are composed of a base metal, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer. Following *Marshall Field*v. *United States*(20 C. C. P. A. 225, T. D. 46037) and *United States*v. *Calhoun*(21 id. 167, T. D. 46495) the articles in question were held not to be toys. The claim that they are dutiable as manufactures of metal, not specially provided for, at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was therefore sustained.
#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7801.

Entry No. 719584, etc.

(Decided March 3, 1950)

*John R. Rafter*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming *567tbe judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *sufra,*maybe incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule, which is marked “A” and made a part of this decision, was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IPM Files -- MATS Policy Case: 4 of 6 

 12/09/2011 04:46 PM 

From: Erich Eschmann/DC/USEPA/US Sort List... 

 

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeb 

Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mikhail Adamantiades/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Erich Eschmann 

Clean Air Markets Division 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation 

 

202 343-9128 Phone 

202 343-2359 Fax 

eschmann.erich@epa.gov

MATS Policy Case_4.zip
No. 46529.

#### Protests 57448-K, etc., of Gunthel & Cruveilher (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

An examination of the record in each case disclosed nothing that would warrant a disturbance of the finding of the collector which was held presumptively correct.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 25694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10096]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy


State Energy Advisory Board

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a teleconference of the State Energy 
Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463; 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these teleconferences 
be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: May 15, 2008 from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EDT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Burch, STEAB Designated Federal 
Officer, Acting Assistant Manager, Office of Commercialization and 
Project Management, Golden Field Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 
1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, CO 80401, Telephone 303/275-4801.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: To make 
recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives, 
programmatic and administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out 
the Board's responsibilities as designated in the State Energy 
Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).
    Tentative Agenda: Update members on routine business matters.
    Public Participation: The teleconference is open to the public. 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after 
the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Gary Burch at the address or 
telephone number listed above. Reasonable provision will be made to 
include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the Board is 
empowered to conduct the call in a fashion that will facilitate the 
orderly conduct of business. This notice is being published less than 
15 days before the date of the meeting due to programmatic issues.
    Notes: The notes of the teleconference will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days on the STEAB Web site, http://www.steab.org.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on May 2, 2008.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-10096 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
No. 42156.

#### Protests 945803-G, etc., of Renna Bros. & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the-authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
Before the First Division,

October 24, 1941

No. 46495.

#### Protests 862255-G, etc., of Anglo South Amer. Trust Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

JOSEPH SEME, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 11-2066 (RJL) 

_______________________________ ) 

ORDER fl-.,- (September~, 2012) 

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby 

ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #16] is 

GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED that JUDGMENT shall be entered for defendant. 

This is a final appealable Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). 

SO ORDERED.
Case No. 9,355.

#### MAYO v. SMITH et al.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 569.] 1

Circuit Court. District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1839.

Bail in Civil Cases — Action of Libel — Amount of Damages Alleged.

In an action upon the case for a libel, the damages were laid at twenty thousand dollars, and the plaintiff in his affidavit averred damages to the same amount; the court required the bail to justify to the amount of five hundred dollars only.

Case for libel. Damages laid at 820,000. The plaintiff’s affidavit to hold the defendants [Thomas J. Smith and F. S. Myer) to special bail stated that the defendants, on the 26th of March, 1839, “in a certain newspaper, called ‘The Metropolis,’ in the publication of which the said Smith and Myer were then and there concerned, published of and concerning” the plaintiff [Robert Mayo] “a certain false, scandalous, and malicious libel, headed ‘Dr. Mayo and the Intelligencer,’ which said libel is hereto annexed.” &c. “And this deponent also saith that he is informed and believes, that said Smith has no intention of remaining in the District of Columbia, but is about to depart from said district for the Southern States. He further saith, that by the publication of said libel he hath incurred and sustained damages to the amount of $20,000.

Mr. Hoban and Mr. Key moved for leave to appear for the defendant

without special bail; or that the bail demanded should be mitigated, and cited Jones v. Kelly, 17 Mass. 115, and 2 Wheel. Abr. 54.

R. S. Coxe and Messrs. Brent & Brent contended that the affidavit of the plaintiff was conclusive; that the libel is atrocious. The affidavit is positive that the defendants published it in the newspaper in which they were concerned, and that the plaintiff has thereby suffered damages to the value of 820,000. The plaintiff’s counsel cited the case of Barrell v. Simonton [Case No. 1,041], in this court, at May term, 1826, where bail was refused in an action for a malicious arrest, only on the ground that the action in which the plaintiff was arrested was not then terminated; and the case of McDonald v. Little [Id. 8,760], in this court, and the case of Doyne v. Barker [Id. 4.055], at November term, 1834, in which bail was required, in slander, in $700, upon an affidavit of the plaintiff’s belief that she had suffered damage to the value of $3,000.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent),

in the present case, said they would be satisfied with bail who could justify in $500.
No. 55600.

#### Chan Kee Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 969299-G, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 43261.

#### Protest 933256-G of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Wolf*(26 C. C. P. A. 243, C. A. D. 23) the microscope sets in question were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 228 (b) as claimed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-639

In Re: JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-334-R)

Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 21, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking

this court to compel the district court and the United States

Bureau of Prisons to cease withholding funds from his prisoner's

account for the purpose of paying his court-ordered restitution.

Appellant claims that this practice violates this court's directives in United States v. Miller, 77 F.3d 71 (4th Cir. 1996), and

United States v. Johnson, 48 F.3d 806 (4th Cir. 1995).

Mandamus is a drastic remedy, only to be granted in extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.

1987) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394

(1976)). The party seeking mandamus relief has the heavy burden of

showing that he has no other adequate avenues of relief and that

his right to the relief sought is "clear and indisputable." Mallard

v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989) (quoting

Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953));

Beard, 811 F.2d at 826. Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a

writ of mandamus, and the decision is within the discretion of the

court addressing the application for the writ. Beard, 811 F.2d at

827 (citations omitted).

We find that Appellant has not met his burden of proof such

that mandamus is the proper remedy in this situation. Mandamus is

not a substitute for appeal, In re United Steelworkers of America,

595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979), and given that the district

court's sentencing order requires immediate payment in full of

restitution by Appellant, Appellant's right to relief by way of
3

mandamus is not clear. See Mallard, 490 U.S. at 309; In re First

Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we deny Appellant's request for mandamus, and his motion for

injunction. 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.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of USIP.Com,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Craig  Burton,
President  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 to the
best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Craig Burton
Craig Burton
President, USIP.Com, Inc.


Date: May 12, 2005
No. 39241.

#### Protest 259902-G of John Wanamaker (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Artificial flowers similar to those involved in Robinson-*Goodman*v. *United States*(17 C. C. P. A. 149, T. D. 43473) were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 1419. Articles in chief value of cellulose filaments were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 as claimed. Abstract 37230 followed.
No. 99-7759.

#### Reaves *v.*United States.

C, A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)

Plans Section, Office of Field 

Operations (MS 5231)

Public Information copy of Exploration Plan

Control # - S-07610

Type - Supplemental Exploration Plan

Lease(s) - OCS-G28104 Block - 64 Atwater Valley Area

Operator - Statoil USA E&P Inc.

Wells E, F, & G

DP Semisubmersible

Attached is a copy of the subject plan for public comments on issues that 

should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment.

It has been deemed submitted as of this date and is under review for approval.

Ronald O'Connor

Plan Coordinator

Description -

Rig Type -

Subject:

From:

July 18, 2013
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



 
 

Exhibit 10.6    
    


        Swiss Re  


 ADDENDUM NO. 2  


to the 


CASUALTY
EXCESS OF LOSS

REINSURANCE AGREEMENT

NO. POR327454

(hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") 


between



SAFETY
INSURANCE COMPANY

SAFETY INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

Boston, Massachusetts

(hereinafter referred to as the "Company") 


and 


SWISS
REINSURANCE AMERICA CORPORATION

Armonk, New York

(hereinafter referred to as the "Reinsurer") 


	I.
	It
is understood and agreed that effective as of inception, January 1, 2006, Paragraph B. of Article IV Limit and Retention is deleted.



	II.
	It
is further understood and agreed that as respects policies in force at 12:01 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, January 1,2007, and new and renewal policies becoming
effective on and after said date, Paragraph A. of Article XI—Reinsurance Premium is revised to read:



	A.
	The
Company shall pay to the Reinsurer a premium for the reinsurance provided hereunder a rate of .11%. Such rate shall be applied to the Company's Subject Earned Premium for the
quarterly period being reported. 






        ALL
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED. 


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Addendum to be executed in duplicate, by their duly authorized representatives as of the following dates: 


In
Boston, MA, this 25 day of September, 2007. 



	ATTEST:	 	Safety Insurance Company Safety Indemnity Insurance Company
	

/s/  GLENN HILTPOLD, FCAS      
	
 	

/s/  EDWARD N. PATRICK, JR.      

	

Glenn Hiltpold, FCAS
 Name	
 	

Edward N. Patrick, Jr.
 Name
	

Director of Actuarial Services
 Title	
 	

VP
 Title




2







 

And
in Armonk, New York, this 18th day of September , 2007. 



	ATTEST:	 	SWISS REINSURANCE AMERICA CORPORATION
	

/s/  JEFFREY ISAACSON      
	
 	

/s/  MATTHEW FAY      

	

Jeffrey Isaacson
 Name	
 	

Matthew Fay
 Name
	

Vice President
 Title	
 	

Senior Vice President
 Title




3











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.6