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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> BD

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               81,393,352             110,778,798
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                  0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              81,393,352             110,778,798
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                   2,256,175               6,343,187
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  79,137,177             104,435,611
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                81,393,352             110,778,798
<TRADING-REVENUE>                            5,105,759              13,244,306
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         4,451,948               6,051,782
<COMMISSIONS>                                6,790,464               8,970,371
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,857,257               5,941,661
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,857,257               5,941,661
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,857,257               5,941,661
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.33                    7.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.33                    7.45


</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 24, 2011

d1017 

# Order

October 24, 2011

143058(7)

JASON HANKINS, Plaintiff,

v SC: 143058 AGC: 2627/10 2674/10 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Court’s September 6, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
127 STAT. 502 PUBLIC LAW 113–26—AUG. 9, 2013 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1171: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113–126 (Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 159 (2013): 

July 8, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–26 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to improve veterans service organizations 

access to Federal surplus personal property. 

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 ‘‘Formerly Owned Resources 

for Veterans to Express Thanks for Service Act of 2013’’ or the 

‘‘FOR VETS Act of 2013’’. 

SEC. 2. VETERANS ACCESS TO FEDERAL EXCESS AND SURPLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY. 

Section 549(c)(3) of title 40, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

(2) in subparagraph (B)— 

(A) in clause (viii), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end; and 

(B) by striking clause (x); and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(C) for purposes of providing services to veterans (as 

defined in section 101 of title 38), to an organization 

whose— 

‘‘(i) membership comprises substantially veterans; 

and 

‘‘(ii) representatives are recognized by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under section 5902 of title 

38.’’. 

Approved August 9, 2013. 

Formerly Owned 

Resources for 

Veterans to 

Express Thanks 

for Service Act 

of 2013. 

40 USC 101 note. 

Aug. 9, 2013 

[H.R. 1171] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
Exhibit 23.2


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report, dated February 3, 1998 (except with respect to the matters discussed in
Notes 2 and 14 of the Company's financial statements, as to which the date is
October 7, 1998), included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously
filed Registration Statements Files No. 33-66624, No. 33-85420, No. 333-00404,
No. 333-63863,and No. 333-63861.




/s/ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Vienna, VA
October 27, 1999
<PAGE>




                                                                   Exhibit 10.3



<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.3

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


Board of Directors
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Auburn Hills, Michigan

We have audited the consolidated statements of income and cash flows of
DaimlerChrysler Corporation and consolidated subsidiaries (the "Company") for
the year ended December 31, 2000. Such consolidated financial statements are
not included herein. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit. We did not audit the financial
statements of Chrysler Financial Company L.L.C. (a consolidated subsidiary)
for the year ended December 31, 2000, which statements reflect total
revenues constituting 13% of consolidated total revenues for the year ended
December 31, 2000. Those financial statements were audited by other
auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as
it relates to the amounts included for Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C., is
based solely on the report of such other auditors.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit and the report of
other auditors provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, based on our audit and the report of other auditors, such
consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects,
the results of the operations and the cash flows of DaimlerChrysler Corporation
and its consolidated subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2000, in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States
of America.

The Company adopted the provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board's
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 133, ACCOUNTING FOR
DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES, on January 1, 2000, and SFAS 138,
ACCOUNTING FOR DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES - AN AMENDMENT OF
SFAS 133, and Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 99-20, RECOGNITION OF
INTEREST INCOME AND IMPAIRMENT ON PURCHASED AND RETAINED BENEFICIAL INTERESTS IN
SECURITIZED FINANCIAL ASSETS, on July 1, 2000.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Detroit, Michigan
February 8, 2001
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         Subsidiaries of the Company
                (incorporated in Delaware, except where noted)


Pueblo Xtra International, Inc.

-  Xtra Merger Corporation

-  Pueblo International, Inc. and Subsidiaries

   i)   CaribAd, Inc. (dba Adteam) (incorporated in Puerto Rico)
   ii)  Xtra Super Food Centers, Inc.

       a)  All Truck, Inc.
       b)  Xtra Drugstore, Inc.
       c)  Pueblo Caribbean Videos, Inc.
       d)  Xtra Super Food V.I., Inc.

   iii) Pueblo Markets, Inc.
   iv)  Pueblo Super Videos, Inc
#### WINSTON TOWERS 200 ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. Joseph SAVERIO, Appellee.

No. 77-280.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 11, 1978.

Morton S. Braverman, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Williams, Salomon, Kanner, Damian, Weissler & Brooks and Vincent E. Damian, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., PEARSON, J., and CRAWFORD, GRADY L. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff condominium association appeals a final judgment for defendant unit owner in an action seeking to enjoin the keeping of a pet.

Defendant, Joseph Saverio, purchased a unit in the Winston Towers Condominium in December, 1971. He owned a female dog which was properly registered with the plaintiff, Winston Towers 200 Association, Inc. In February, 1974, the members of the association voted to amend the by-laws with respect to the ownership and replacement of pets. The amended by-law provided that all pets, including any pet acquired as a replacement of a prior pet not registered as of February 28, 1973 would not be permitted on the premises. Any unit owner violating this provision would be assessed a fine of $10 per day. In May, 1975 Mr. Saverio’s dog gave birth to two pups, one of which he decided to keep. The association informed him that since the pup could not be registered, he was not permitted under the amended by-laws to keep it and unless he removed the pup from the premises he would be fined $10 per day. Mr. Saverio refused to comply and the association brought the instant action seeking to enjoin him from keeping the pup. A hearing was held at which only the attorneys for the parties argued. After argument of counsel, the judge ruled that the by-law in question was invalid and unenforceable in that it attempted to impose a retroactive regulation. He thereupon denied the relief sought by the association and entered judgment for Mr. Saverio. We affirm.

The record .supports the trial judge’s determination that the subject amendment to the by-laws was void and unenforceable *471inasmuch as it was an attempt to impose a retroactive regulation. We, therefore, conclude that the judge correctly entered judgment for Mr. Saverio.

Affirmed.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-140-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50317

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIO ERNESTO GARCIA-LOREDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-00-CR-596-ALL-FB

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

October 29, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julio Ernesto Garcia-Loredo appeals the 71-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

being found in the United States after removal in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. Garcia-Loredo complains that his sentence was

enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which allowed the

court to impose up to a twenty-year term of imprisonment because

he was removed after being convicted of an aggravated felony. 

Garcia-Loredo argues that the sentencing provision violates the

Due Process Clause because it permitted the sentencing judge to
No. 01-50317 

-2-

find, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a fact

which increased the statutory maximum sentence to which he

otherwise would have been exposed. Garcia-Loredo thus contends

that his sentence is invalid and argues that it should not exceed

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). Garcia-Loredo acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the

issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). GarciaLoredo’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

 AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM PIERCE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 4 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of February, 2017

, the Application for the Assignment

of Counsel is DENIED

.
#### Harvey Thomas ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. FIRST STATE BANK OF LANTANA, First American Bank of Lake Worth, N.A., and Central Bank of Palm Beach County, Respondents.

No. 78-1474.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 13, 1978.

Timothy H. Kenney, Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Paul B. Erickson, Palm Beach, for respondents.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James R. Stewart, Judge.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari is hereby DENIED.

ANSTEAD, DAUKSCH and MOORE, JJ., concur.
#### CORNELI SEED COMPANY, Appellant, v. Fritz STEIN, Jr., d/b/a Fritz Stein Farms, Appellee.

No. 69-96.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

July 31, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.76



December 13, 2001

From: Richard Epstein
      Alliance Equities, Inc.

To:   Alex Kanakaris

Dear Mr. Kanakaris:

This is to confirm that Alliance Equities is extending our line-of-credit
agreement with Kanakaris Wireless, Inc. for two additional years (the new
expiration date will be Dec. 30, 2003). There are no changes to the terms
and conditions of the agreement.

We look forward to continuing to serve your needs.

Regards,

/s/ Richard Epstein
Richard Epstein
President
Alliance Equities, Inc.
EXHIBIT 3.2



ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

OF

HOOKER FURNITURE CORPORATION



1. The name of the Corporation is Hooker Furniture Corporation (the Corporation).



Section 3.1 of Article III of the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation is amended to read in its entirety as follows:



| | 3.1 |  | Number and Designation. The number and designation of shares that the Corporation shall have authority to issue and the par value per share are as follows:
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Class  |  | Number of Shares |  | Par Value
|------ |  | ---------------- |  | ---------
|Common |  | 20,000,000       |  | No Par   



The
foregoing amendment to the Corporations Articles of Incorporation was adopted on March 28, 2003.



The foregoing amendment was proposed by the Board of Directors and submitted to the shareholders in accordance with the Virginia Stock
Corporation Act. There were no voting groups entitled to vote separately on the amendment. The designation, number of outstanding shares and the number of votes entitled to be cast are set forth below.



|Description                |  | SharesOutstanding |  | Votes Entitledto be Cast |  | Undisputed VotesCast For theAmendment
|-------------------------- |  | ----------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Common Stock, no par value |  | 7,237,650         |  | 7,237,650                |  | 6,448,407                            



The number of undisputed
votes cast for the amendment was sufficient for approval of the amendment.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused these Articles of Amendment to be signed by E. Larry Ryder, its authorized officer, on April 10, 2003.



HOOKER FURNITURE CORPORATIONBy:

/s/    E. LARRY
RYDERE. Larry RyderExecutive Vice PresidentFinance and
Administration
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27774]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water 
Act

    In accordance with departmental policy, 28 CFR Sec. 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United States v. Inland 
Steel Company, Civil Action No. 2:96CV-097 JM, was lodged on September 
4, 1997 with the United States District Court for the Northern District 
of Indiana. The proposed consent decree settles pending Clean Water Act 
claims against Inland Steel Company in connection with its Harbor Works 
steelmaking facility in East Chicago, Indiana. The consent decree 
settles these claims in exchange for Inland's commitment to comply with 
the Clean Water Act in the future, a civil penalty of $150,000, and a 
supplemental environmental project consisting of spill control 
improvements at fueling stations at the Inland facility.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to 
United States v. Inland Steel Company, Civil Action No. 2:96CV-097 JM, 
and the Department of Justice Reference No. 90-5-1-1-4282. The proposed 
consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States 
Attorney, Northern District of Indiana, 1001 Main Street, Suite A, 
Dyer, Indiana 46311; the Region 5 Office of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-
3590; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th 
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, 202-624-0892. A copy of the proposed 
consent decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. 
In requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a 
check in the amount of $5.75 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environmental and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-27774 Filed 10-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
#### Dora HURWITZ, Wife of Sidney K. STEINFELD v. Sidney K. STEINFELD.

No. 3835.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

June 1, 1970.

*271Roos & Roos, Leo S. Roos, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Polack, Rosenberg & Rittenberg, Leon H. Rittenberg, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and Le-SUEUR, JJ.

LeSUEUR, Judge.

Defendant has appealed from a decree requiring that he maintain the premises in which his estranged wife was then residing and that he pay alimony to her in the sum of $1,200.00 per month.

The thrust of this appeal is somewhat unusual. The defendant’s primary complaint is that both phases of the judgment are vague in that each fails to provide for the unknown contingencies of life, such as a breakdown in one of the primary systems in the house (i. e., the airconditioning) or a fluctuation in his income which is significantly predicated upon oil royalties. These problems always exist and no judgment will ever fix the entire range of eventualities within its terms.

It is for this reason that alimony decrees remain interlocutory, a provision which the defendant overlooks. Should any of the contingencies which he fears come to pass, then he may, in each instance, resort to the trial court for an appropriate modification, as may his wife. Until that time, any action by this court would be advisory and inappropriate.

Any of the difficulties which defendant fears resulting from the injunction against mutual molestation, interference or disturbance would fall within the same rule.

For the above reasons, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

REDMANN, Judge

(concurring).

The judgment appealed from awarded $1,200 monthly alimony pendente lite and obliged the husband to pay for “maintenance” of the house where the wife then resided, which was his separate property.

By the time of this appeal it is conceded the wife no longer resides in that house, and the husband does not allege any unusual item of maintenance he has paid for which he might seek credit in a final accounting. On that issue I believe the appeal has become moot.

On quantum, plaintiff objects that mineral income is not true income but a realization of capital. Nevertheless it was used for living purposes and set the wife’s accustomed style of living. And the husband’s “income” is a factor only in permanent alimony, LSA-C.C. art. 160; his “means” is the factor in alimony pendente lite, art. 148.

On the question of injunction against annoying one another, there is no evidence whatsoever in the record. I am confident *272that no such injunction would have been issued by the trial judge unless, as the wife’s counsel insists, it was done with the consent of the parties. In any case, the husband in brief observes he is really not concerned with this aspect of the judgment appealed from.