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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000884382
<NAME> PRIMEDIA INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          27,226                  36,655
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  211,150                 273,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                    37,379                  39,516
<INVENTORY>                                     70,844                  52,743
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               303,826                 376,519
<PP&E>                                         161,770                 204,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,757                  81,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,881,416               2,552,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          360,386                 421,224
<BONDS>                                      1,134,916               1,565,686
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          231,606                 442,729
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       777,475                 779,882
<OTHER-SE>                                   (656,891)               (692,368)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,881,416               2,552,215
<SALES>                                      1,046,329               1,374,449
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,046,329               1,374,449
<CGS>                                          251,347                 337,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  251,347                 337,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               821,257                 951,483
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             105,837                 124,601
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (135,035)                (35,703)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (59,600)                (53,300)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (75,435)                  17,597
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                 (9,553)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (75,435)                   8,044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.92)                   (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.92)                   (.27)


</TABLE>
#### L. A. Schwob et al. *v.*United States

No. 7895.

Entry No. 36143, etc.

(Decided October 23, 1950)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

*448LawRencb, 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 the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be 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.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40800-40801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19988]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 
2, notice is hereby given that there will be a closed meeting of the 
Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award on 
Wednesday, August 6, 1997. The Judges Panel is composed of nine members 
prominent in the field of quality management and appointed by the 
Secretary of Commerce. The purpose of this meeting is to review the 
1997 Award applications and to select applications to be considered in 
the site visit stage of the evaluation. The applications under review 
contain trade secrets and proprietary commercial information submitted 
to the Government in confidence.

DATES: The meeting will convene August 6, 1997, at 8:00 a.m. and 
adjourn at 5:00 p.m. on August 6, 1997. The entire meeting will be 
closed.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Administration Building, Gaithersburg, 
Maryland 20899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program, National Institute 
of Standards and Technology,

[[Page 40801]]

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number (301) 975-2361.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary for Administration, 
with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on 
February 10, 1997, that the meeting of the Judges Panel will be closed 
pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409. The meeting, which involves 
examination of records and discussion of Award applicant data, may be 
closed to the public in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, 
United States Code, since the meeting is likely to disclose trade 
secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person 
and privileged or confidential.

    Dated: July 22, 1997.
Elaine Bunten-Mines,
Director, Program Office.
[FR Doc. 97-19988 Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-M
F-i

APPENDIX F. ASPECT RATIO CALCULATIONS FOR BUILDINGS WITH

COURTYARDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

F.1 COURTYARD ASPECT RATIO DETERMINATION ....................... F-1

F.2 MAPPING TO A RECTANGULAR BUILDING WITHOUT A COURTYARD .... F-1
F-1

APPENDIX F. ASPECT RATIO CALCULATIONS FOR BUILDINGS WITH

COURTYARDS

F.1 COURTYARD ASPECT RATIO DETERMINATION

A single-story rectangular building with a courtyard with the distance from the outside

wall to the courtyard of a constant depth D, width W and Aspect Ratio R has the following

formulas for Area and Perimeter:

 Perimeter = outside perimeter + courtyard perimeter

= 2 W (R+1) + 2 (RW-2D + W-2D)

= 4RW +4W –8D

= 4 (RW +W-2D)

 Area = 2 (D) (W-2D) + 2 (D) (RW-2D) + 4 D2

= 2 D (RW +W –2D)

And the ratio of the perimeter to area (P/A) becomes simply

 P/A = 2 / D

This is important. The ratio of the Perimeter to Footprint area for these buildings is a

constant once the depth D is known.

F.2 MAPPING TO A RECTANGULAR BUILDING WITHOUT A COURTYARD

If we want to produce a rectangular building with the same ratio of perimeter to area, we

start with the ratio of perimeter P’ to area A’ in any rectangular building of width W’ and aspect

ratio R’

 P’ = 2(W+RW’)

=2W’(R’+1)

 A’ = (R’W’ )( W’)

 P/A = 2 (R’+1) /R’ W’

Equating P’/A’ with P/A we get

2 (R’+1) /(R’W’) = 2 / D
F-2

We do not know R’ or W’ currently, but we do know that we want the floor area of the

building with the courtyard to be the same as that of our rectangular (non courtyard) building. 

Hence, W’ = (A/R’)0.5, and substituting

2 (R’+1) /(A0.5R’0.5) = 2 /D

(R’+1) / R’0.5 = (A0.5/D)

R’2 +2R’ +1 = AR’/D2

R’2 +(2-A/D2)R’ +1 = 0

And solving the quadratic in R

R’ = -(2-A/D2) +/- [(2-A/D2)

2

 –4] 0.5

 2

R’ = -(2-A/D2) +/- [(4-4A/D

2+A2

/D4 –4] 0.5

 2

R’ = A/D2-2 +/- [(A

2

/D4-4A/D2]

0.5

 2

The two solutions correspond to R = L/W and R = W/L. We want the larger, greater than

1.0 value for R’. If we further substitute parameter Z for A/D2

 R’ = A/D2 + [(A2/D4-4A/D2] 0.5 -2

 2

 R’= Z + [(Z2 –4Z] 0.5 -2

 2

at the lower limit (a square building with infinitesimal courtyard) A = 4D2 and Z = 4 and R = R’ =

1, which is what you would expect (start with a square, end with a square building).

At the upper limit, Z goes to infinity and R’ ~ Z, which is also what you would expect

from a thin ribbon of building with courtyard.
Exhibit 3 (c)

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          COASTAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION


     Coastal Financial  Corporation,  a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the  General  Corporation  Law of the State of  Delaware,  does
hereby certify:

     1.   That at a  meeting  of the Board of  Directors  of  Coastal  Financial
          Corporation,  resolutions  were duly adopted  setting forth a proposed
          amendment of the  Certificate of  Incorporation  of said  corporation,
          declaring  said amendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the
          stockholders  of  said  corporation  for  consideration  thereof.  The
          resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

               RESOLVED,  that the  following  proposed  amendment  to the first
               sentence of Article VI of the  Certificate of  Incorporation,  as
               amended (the remainder of said Article VI shall remain  unchanged
               in all respects), is hereby declared advisable:

               "The  aggregate  number of shares of all classes of capital stock
               which the  Corporation  has authority to issue is 51,000,000,  of
               which 50,000,000 are to be shares of common stock, $.01 par value
               per  share,  and of which  1,000,000  are to be  shares of serial
               preferred stock, $.01 par value per share."

     2.   That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, the
          2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Coastal  Financial  Corporation
          was duly called and held,  upon notice in accordance  with Section 222
          of the  General  Corporation  Law of the State of  Delaware,  at which
          meeting the  necessary  number of shares as  required by statute  were
          voted in favor of the amendment.

     3.   That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions
          of  Section  242 of the  General  Corporation  Law  of  the  State  of
          Delaware.

     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,   Coastal  Financial   Corporation  has  caused  this
certificate  to be signed by its  authorized  officer  this 1st day of  February
2006.

                     By:     /s/ Michael C. Gerald
                             -------------------------------------
                             Michael C. Gerald
                             President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       37
#### WILLIAM H. VANDERBURGH v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS and Others.1

December 20, 1907.

Nos. 15,497—(163).

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $25,000 from defendant city and the Chicago Great Western Railway Company. From an order, Holt, J., denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.

Affirmed.

IV. *M. Vanderburgh,*pro se.

*Frank Mealy,*City Attorney, *L. A. Dunn*and *A. O. Finney,*Assistant City - Attorneys, for respondent. .

1

 Reported in 114 N. W. 1134.

PER CURIAM.

Action to recover damages for the vacation of certain streets in the defendant city, whereby the plaintiff’s lots, as he claims, were depreciated in value. Verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff made a motion for a new trial upon four distinct grounds and twenty seven specifications of error. He appealed from the order denying his motion for a new trial. I-Iis only assignment of error in this court is in these words: “The court below erred in 'denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.” The defendant makes the claim in its brief that the assignment is wholly insufficient to raise any questions as- to the correctness of the order appealed from and for this reason declines to discuss them. The case was submitted on briefs by both parties. The defendant’s claim must be sustained in accordance with the uniform decisions of this court. Dunnell, Minn. Pr. § 1796. Order affirmed.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1179 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure that benefits 

under part D of such title have no impact on benefits under other 

Federal programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 7, 2005 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure 

that benefits under part D of such title have no impact 

on benefits under other Federal programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BENEFITS UNDER THE MEDICARE DRUG PRO4 GRAM HAVE NO IMPACT UNDER OTHER FED5 ERAL PROGRAMS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–42 of the Social 

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–152) is amended by add8 ing at the end the following new subsection: 
2 

•S 1179 IS

1 ‘‘(c) BENEFITS HAVE NO IMPACT ON BENEFITS

2 UNDER OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS.—Benefits under 

3 this part, including the availability of negotiated prices 

4 under this part and premium and cost-sharing subsidies 

5 under section 1860D–14, shall not be treated as benefits 

6 or otherwise taken into account in determining an individ7 ual’s eligibility for, or the amount of benefits under, any 

8 other Federal program.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact11 ment of section 101(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 

12 Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 

13 108–173; 117 Stat. 2071). 

Æ
No. 6116.

#### INTERDICTION OF HENRY HIRSH.

Syllabus.

Questions of fact only are involved.

Appeal from the /Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “C,” No. 101,372. Hon. E. K. Skinner, Judge.

Moise, Suthon & Loomis, for plaintiff and appellant.

L. Charbonnet, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

The curator appeals from a judgment maintaining Dr. Seebold’s opposition to the account and allowing the latter compensation in the sum of $1000.00 for medical services and attention rendered to the interdict prior to his interdiction. The opponent has answei'ed the appeal and prays that the judgment be increased to the amount demanded in his opposition, namely, $1,975.00.

The services covered • a period of several months extending to within a few weeks of the interdiction proceedings; and while it is true that Hirsch was not insane during this period and was mentally capable of contracting for the medical attention which he required, still it is safe to say that he never for a moment contemplated or appreciated that .-he would incur on this score an expense of such proportions as is evidenced by opponent’s demand. And it is a fact established by opponent’s own witnesses that when the account or bill for the first month’s services was presented, Hirsch refused to pay same, protesting against the scale of charges and pronouncing them unreaonable.

*301Opinion and decree, June 1st, 1914.

As to the duration and frequency of the visits made and as to the reasonableness of the charge for each visit, the testimony of the opponent is to some degree corroborated by that of other witnesses. But for proof as to the nature and seriousness of the illness or diseases from which the interdict was suffering and as to the consequent necessity of making the unusually large number of visits for which compensation is sought, the opponent relies entirely upon his own unsupported statements.

Upon the whole we 'have no doubt that Hirsch was seriously ill for a long time and that he required and rerecived of opponent skilled and constant service -and conscientious attention, while the efficacy of the treatment is demonstrated by the fact that the patient’s physical condition and general health were very good at the time these proceedings were instituted.

But considering the character of the proof, the station in life and value of the estate of the interdict, we are unable to say that-the trial Court’s allowance was not proper and we accordingly dp not feel justified in amending the judgment in favor of either party to the litigation.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Joseph R. O’DELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 50570.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 7, 1977.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Charles F. McClamma and Michael H. Davidson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the Writ and have heard argument of the parties. After hearing argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the Court is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Writ of Certiorari must be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and KARL, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, BOYD and HATCHETT, JJ., dissent.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7667

ROBERT EDGAR MOORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-888) Submitted: January 21, 2004 Decided: March 31, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Edgar Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Edgar Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Moore’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000722617
<NAME>                     MNI GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                             1
<CURRENCY>                             USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  JAN-01-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<CASH>                              5,000
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      86,800
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                        40,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  133,200
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    148,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             718,500
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                        7,276,400
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      148,200
<SALES>                           939,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  939,700
<CGS>                             527,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     982,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  (66,700)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                (40,100)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (66,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (82,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (66,700)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0


</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

May 10, 1943

No. 48268.

#### Petition 6266-R of H. L. Spindle (Laredo).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the trial the petitioner herein, a customhouse broker, appeared and gave testimony which exonerated him of any bad faith in the transaction, but the record is barren of any testimony tending to establish the good faith of the principal in this case, who did not appear at the trial. There being nothing in the record on which to base a finding that the principal acted without intent to defraud, deceive, or misrepresent the facts of the case, the petition was denied. _ ’
#### Theodore Jesse WARD v. Dottie WARD.

No. 50032.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 20, 1977.

Charles T. Sykes, Jr., Gulfport, for appellant.

Dyer, Dyer & Dyer, Howard Dyer, III, Greenville, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Sharkey County; J. D. Thames, Chancellor.

Before ROBERTSON, WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED.

PATTERSON and INZER, P. JJ., and SMITH, SUGG and LEE, JJ., concur.

GILLESPIE, C. J., took no part.