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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          30,859
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,899,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (844,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,013,333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,485,128
<PP&E>                                      13,839,955
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,585,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,045,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,483,329
<BONDS>                                      5,598,307
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,786
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,910,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,045,682
<SALES>                                     42,575,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,575,120
<CGS>                                       31,663,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,663,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               496,662
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             763,793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,534,986
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,081,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,453,986
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,453,986
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: June 11, 2015 516551 

________________________________

In the Matter of KYLEE Y. and

Others, Alleged to be

Neglected Children.

CLINTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Respondent;

LYNN AA.,

Respondent.

TIMOTHY Z.,

Appellant.

(Proceeding No. 1.)

_______________________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In the Matter of KYLEE Y. and

Others, Alleged to be

Neglected Children.

CLINTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Respondent;

DONALD Y.,

Respondent.

TIMOTHY Z.,

Appellant.

(Proceeding No. 2.)

________________________________

Calendar Date: April 29, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.
-2- 516551 

__________

Allan B. Cruikshank, Plattsburgh, for appellant.

Allison W. Mussen, Clinton County Department of Social

Services, Plattsburgh, for Clinton County Department of Social

Services, respondent.

Omshanti Parnes, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.

__________

Rose, J.

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Clinton

County (Lawliss, J.), entered March 11, 2013, which granted

petitioner's applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family

Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondents' children to be

neglected, and modified an award of supervised visitation to

Timothy Z.

Timothy Z. (hereinafter the father) is the father of twins,

Brandy Y. and Cedar Y. (born in 2008). Respondent Lynn AA. is

the mother of the twins and she also has two other children, who

are not the subject of this appeal, with respondent Donald Y. 

Petitioner commenced these proceedings against Lynn AA. and

Donald Y. alleging that they had neglected all four of the

children, and the father appeared as a nonrespondent parent (see

Family Ct Act § 1035 [d]). Family Court determined that the

children were neglected and entered dispositional orders which,

as relevant here, provided the father with visitation supervised

by petitioner. 

The father appeals, arguing that Family Court did not have

a sound and substantial basis to name petitioner as the

supervisor of visitation. Since the March 2013 entry of the

dispositional orders on appeal, however, Family Court (Ryan, J.)

issued permanency orders terminating the father's right to
-3- 516551 

visitation with his children.1 Those orders were entered in

November 2014, and it is our understanding that they have not

been appealed. Accordingly, these subsequent orders render the

appeals moot, inasmuch as the rights of the father will not be

"'directly affected by the determination of the appeal[s]'"

(Matter of Veronica P. v Radcliff A., 24 NY3d 668, 671 [2015],

quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980];

see Matter of Lauren L. [Cassi M.], 79 AD3d 1172, 1172 [2010];

Matter of Ariel FF., 63 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2009]). 

Peters, P.J., Garry and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court

1 We take judicial notice of those orders (see Matter of

Hannah U. [Patti U.], 110 AD3d 1258, 1260 n 5 [2013]).
USGS CMG FACS EQUIPMENT LOG

ACTIVITY ID: 99FGS01 and 99FGS02

EQUIPMENT

SYSTEM

EQUIPMENT

TYPE

EQUIPMENT

CODE

EQUIPMENT

BRAND

EQUIPMENT

MODEL

EQUIPMENT

MEDIA COMMENTS

Boomer system Subbottom 

profiler Boomer Applied Acoustics CSP 300 Digital

Huntec plate; ITI ST-5 

10-channel

hydrophone streamer; 

Delph Seismic

acquisition software, 

 version 1.36

Navigation 

system 

Navigation 

receiver GPS Trimble Centurion Digital

3 - 5 m accuracy

running Fugawi 

software; trim_rmc.pln

navigation driver
#### Jimmie WEATHERSPOON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 46051.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 18, 1971.

James A. Dale, III, Columbus, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Timmie Hancock, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

INZER, Justice:

Appellant Jimmie Weatherspoon was indicted, tried and convicted of manslaughter in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County. He was sentenced to serve a term of fifteen years in the State Penitentiary. From this conviction and sentence he appeals. We affirm.

The only assignment of error is that the verdict of the jury is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Late in the afternoon of January 20, 1969, appellant shot and killed John Brandon, Jr. at Brandon’s home in Lowndes County. The testimony establishes that on this day appellant, armed with a .22 caliber pistol in a holster at his side, went to the home of Brandon. When Brandon saw that appellant was armed with a pistol, he told him to get out of his yard because he did not want him there with the gun *54around his children. Appellant, after being told several times to leave, went outside the fenced yard and stood near the gate. He told Brandon that he had been coming there all the time and the place belonged to Mr. Ike and that he was not going to let Brandon run him off. Brandon replied that he was not running him off the place but that he just wanted him out of his yard. After an exchange of some other words, appellant went back into the yard and when he did so, Brandon arose from a chair in which he was sitting on his porch and started towards appellant with a pistol in his hand. Appellant also had his pistol in his hand and they started shooting at each other. Brandon was hit with three bullets which resulted in his death. Appellant was not injured in the affray. The testimony is not clear as to which one fired the first shot, but one witness testified that Brandon was firing over the head of appellant. However, appellant went back into the yard after being told to stay out of it by Brandon. He testified that Brandon fired the first shot and that he was only acting in self defense when he shot and killed Brandon.

We are of the opinion that the jury could find from the evidence in this case that when appellant went back into Brandon’s yard, he was a trespasser and that Brandon had the right to protect his home and premises and to use such force as was necessary to remove appellant from his premises. Thus, the jury was justified in finding that the appellant provoked the difficulty and was the aggressor throughout the same. It is well settled that the person who provokes a difficulty and remains the aggressor throughout the same cannot invoke the plea of self defense. Here appellant was at fault and in the wrong in resisting the right of Brandon to keep him off of his premises. Cotton v. State, 135 Miss. 792, 100 So. 383 (1924).

We are of the opinion that there was ample evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury in this case and that there being no reversible error, the same should be and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ETHRIDGE, C. J., and GILLESPIE, P. J., and JONES and ROBERTSON, JJ„ concur.
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

American National Insurance Company:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 001-3480) on Form 10-12B and Registration No. 133-160698 ofForm S-8 of American National Insurance Company (the Company) of our reports dated February 27, 2015, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2014, and the related financial statement schedules I-V, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, which reports appear in the December 31, 2014 annual report on Form 10-K of the Company. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Houston, Texas 

February 27, 2015
#### Claude R. KIRK, Jr., Governor of the State of Florida, and Gerald Mager, as Legal Counsel to the Governor, Petitioners, v. Paul BAKER, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, Respondent.

No. 38657.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 19, 1969.

See also 224 So.2d 311 and 229 So.2d 250.

Leo L. Foster and Julius F. Parker, Jr., of Parker, Foster & Madigan, Tallahassee, for petitioners.

Carr & Warren, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This proceeding for prohibition, following oral argument, is now under consideration by this Court.

Further proceedings relating to the Order directed to Claude R. Kirk, Jr., and Gerald Mager and purporting to require such persons to appear before Paul Baker, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, on Friday, June 27, 1969, at 10:00 a.m., to show cause why they should not be held in contempt, are hereby stayed until further order of this Court.

The Clerk of this Court shall forthwith notify Judge Baker of the entry of this Order .and note such fact on the face hereof.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
```

[104th Congress Public Law 103]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ103.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 55]]

Public Law 104-103
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To guarantee the timely payment of social security benefits in March 
              1996. <<NOTE: Feb. 8, 1996 -  [H.R. 2924]>> 

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

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 31 USC 3101 note.>> TIMELY PAYMENT OF MARCH 1996 
            SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS GUARANTEED.

    (a) Findings.--
            (1) Congress intends to pass an increase in the public debt 
        limit before March 1, 1996.
            (2) In the interim, social security beneficiaries should be 
        assured that social security benefits will be paid on a timely 
        basis in March 1996.

    (b) Guarantee of Social Security Benefit Payments.--In addition to 
any other authority provided by law, the Secretary of the Treasury may 
issue under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, obligations of 
the United States before March 1, 1996, in an amount equal to the 
monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social Security 
Act in March 1996.
    (c) Obligations Exempt From Public Debt Limit.--
            (1) In general.--Obligations issued under subsection (b) 
        shall not be taken into account in applying the limitation in 
        section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code.
            (2) Termination of exemption.--Paragraph (1) shall cease to 
        apply on the earlier of--
                    (A) the date of the enactment of the first increase 
                in the limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31, United 
                States Code, after the date of the enactment of this 
                Act, or
                    (B) March 15, 1996.

    Approved February 8, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2924 (S. 1555):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
            Feb. 1, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 32 (1996):
            Feb. 8, Presidential statement.

                                  <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26597]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-167-008]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

October 2, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 29, 1997, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing the revised tariff sheets 
listed on Appendix A to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 
1, in compliance with the Commission's directive in its Letter Order 
dated June 11, 1997 and the Letter Order dated July 24, 1997 at RP97-
167-005. These tariff sheets implement the Gas Industry Standards 
Board's standards adopted by the Commission in Order No. 587-C. 
Columbia proposes an effective date of November 1, 1997 for the tariff 
sheets.
    Columbia states that tariff sheets 456 reflects the change directed 
by the Commission in its July 24, 1997 Letter Order regarding GISB 
Standard 4.3.6. Columbia had incorrectly sought to adopt version 1.1. 
The remaining tariff sheets were accepted by the Commission in its June 
11, 1997 Letter Order.
    Columbia states that copies of its filings have been mailed to all 
of its customers, affected State Regulatory commissions, and all 
parties to this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing, should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such projects must be made as provided in 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but such protests will not serve to make protestants parties 
to this proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26597 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26493]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[NM-07-1320-00; NM-6802, NM-3835, NM-3752, NM-3753, NM-3754, NM-3755, 
NM-3837, NM-7235, NM-3918, NM-3919, NM-8745]


Notice of Coal Action; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability, cost estimate document (CED) for the 
Ark Land Company's preference right lease applications (PRLAs) San Juan 
County, New Mexico.

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

SUMMARY: The PRLA process requires that a CED be prepared and made 
available to the public. The CED estimates the costs of compliance with 
all laws, regulations, lease terms, and special stipulations intended 
to protect the environmental impacts of mining. This action establishes 
the availability of the CED for Ark Land Company's PRLAs.

DATES: On or before December 8, 1997, interested parties may submit 
comments regarding the CED to the Bureau of Land Management at the 
following address. All comments will be reviewed by the Bureau of Land 
Management, Farmington District Manager, 1235 La Plata Highway, Suite 
A., Farmington, New Mexico, 87401.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charlie Beecham, Farmington District, 
BLM, (505) 599-6370.

    Dated: October 1, 1997.
John Phillips,
Acting District Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-26493 Filed 10-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Harold HAYES.

No. 60038.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1977.

John J. Dolan, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., William L. Brockman, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.. ■
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2972 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2972

 To require the Secretary of the Interior to repay States for amounts 
expended by States to operate units of the National Park System during 
                         a Government shutdown.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 28 (legislative day, September 22), 2023

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of the Interior to repay States for amounts 
expended by States to operate units of the National Park System during 
                         a Government shutdown.

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

SECTION 1. REPAYMENT OF STATE FUNDS USED TO OPERATE UNITS OF THE 
              NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM DURING A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.

    (a) Definition of Government Shutdown.--In this section, the term 
``Government shutdown'' means a lapse in appropriations for 1 or more 
agencies of the Federal Government.
    (b) Repayment Required.--Not later than 30 days after the date on 
which a Government shutdown ends, on the request of a State that 
expended State funds to operate 1 or more units of the National Park 
System in the State during the Government shutdown, the Secretary of 
the Interior shall pay to that State an amount equal to the amount 
expended by the State to operate the 1 or more units of the National 
Park System in that State during the Government shutdown.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSE PARRA, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 05-321 Erie

v. )

)

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on October 27,

2005, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for

report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 28], filed on

September 27, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s Petition be denied and that a

certificate of appealability be denied. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the

date of service to file objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail and

on Respondent. No objections were filed. After de novo review of the Petition and

documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following

order is entered:

AND NOW, this 19th day of October, 2006;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DENIED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 28] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on September 27, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00321-SJM-SPB Document 29 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Myra HELLER, Petitioner, v. CURTIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc., a Florida corporation, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondents.

No. L-76.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

May 13, 1969.

Louis J. Ferris, Jr., Orlando, for petitioner.

Éli H. Subin, of Roth, Segal & Levine, Orlando, for respondent, Curtis Mfg. Co., Inc.

Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, for respondent Florida Industrial Commission.

PER CURIAM.

Petition and cross petition for certiorari denied.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 4.3
                                                                     -----------

                              STOCK PURCHASE OPTION
                              ---------------------


         This  certifies  that  Gary S.  Krall,  who  currently  resides  at 204
Sheffield Court,  Southlake, TX 760192 is entitled to purchase, on or before the
exercise date (as defined below),  Twenty-five  Thousand  (25,000) shares of the
Common Stock of Advanced EnviroTech Systems,  Inc., a Texas Corporation and such
shares  will be fully  paid and  non-assessable  upon the  payment of the option
price of Seventy-five Center ($0.75) per share. The shares will be issued by the
Corporation  upon  presentation  of this  Option,  payment of the full  purchase
price, and purchaser's compliance with the following terms and conditions.

                              TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1.       The "Exercise  Date" shall be the earlier of i) that date which is five
(5) years from the date of execution  hereof or ii) that date which is five days
prior to the effective date of any initial public offering which the Corporation
may file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

2.       This  Option is  non-transferable  and may be  exercised  solely by the
person named above.

3.       The Option shall be fully protected from dilution regarding any forward
or reverse stock splits  authorized and put into effect by the Corporation prior
to the Exercise Date hereof.  Any change in the structure of this Corporation or
in its outstanding  stock that affects the rights and participation to which the
purchaser would be entitled as of this date upon exercise of this Option,  shall
result in the  proportionate  adjustment  of the  shares  that may be  purchased
hereunder.

         IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  Corporation  has caused  this  Option to be
executed by its duly authorized officer effective the 15th day of January, 1997.

         ADVANCED ENVIROTECH SYSTEMS, INC.

                                                   BY:     /S/ MATTHEW FLEEGER
                                                          ----------------------

                                                   ITS:   PRESIDENT/CEO
                                                          ----------------------