alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Johnnie Lee LUSH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-649.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 29, 1974.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Norman J. Kapner, Asst. Public Defender and Bruce Zeidel, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie Bernard, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of State v. Lott, Fla.1973, 286 So.2d 565.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
Effective Marginal Tax Rates on New Investment (in Percent)

Current Law

Business 28.4

 Corporate Business 30.3

 Asset Type

 Equipmenta 24.7

 Structuresb 29.4

 Landc 36.3

 Inventoriesc,d 39.5

 Intangiblese 22.2

 Financing

 Debt-financed -1.8

 Equity-financed 35.4

 Pass-through Business 25.2

Owner-occupied Housing -1.5

Total 21.0

Variation, Cost of Capital

 Standard Deviation 0.0152

 Coefficient of Variation 0.2747

Source: US Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

Notes: LIFO = last in first out; FIFO = first in first out; EMTR = effective 

marginal tax rates.

The effective marginal tax rates shown include firm-level taxes and individual-level taxes.

The standard deviation of the cost of capital and the coefficient of variation are measures of 

the uniformity of the tax system. The standard deviation and the coefficient of variation equal zero 

with uniform taxation of all investments. 

a. Equipment includes both nonresidential and residential equipment.

b. Structures include nonresidential, tenant-occupied, and owner-occupied structures.

c. The economic depreciation rate is set to zero and no tax depreciation is included when calculating EMTR.

d. For inventories, the effective marginal tax rate is calculated using a cost of capital that is a 

weighted average of the cost of capital under LIFO accounting and the cost of capital under FIFO 

accounting.

e. Intangible assets include research and development (R&D), artistic originals, and advertising. R&D and 

advertising are assumed to be expensed. Artistic originals are assumed to be depreciated over 

15 years using the straight-line method.

Office of Tax Analysis 

U.S. Department of the Treasury 

August 20, 2014
#### Raymond A. KLEIN, Appellant, v. Sheila KLEIN, Appellee.

No. 69-769.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 21, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1970.

Patrick McGrotty, Miami for appellant.

Pallot, Silver, Pallot, Stern, Proby & Adkins, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Williams v. Williams, Fla.App.1968, 177 So.2d 865; Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 137.
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                   PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                   THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark W. Wong, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of S&W Seed Company; and

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report.

|Date: October 29, 2018 |  |                                                                                                       
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | /s/ Mark W. WongPresident and Chief Executive Officer
                   (Principal Executive Officer)

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30643]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4606-000]


Boston Edison Company; Notice of Filing

November 17, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 24, 1997, Boston Edison Company 
tendered for filing additional information to its September 15, 1997, 
filing in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before November 28, 1997. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30643 Filed 11-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000022198
<NAME> COLUMBUS SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,901,339
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     23,624
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         254,288
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        38,880
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 360,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,578,580
<COMMON>                                        41,026
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      571,922
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            111,953
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 724,901
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           25,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           839,875
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              24,400
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 111,700
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   96,390
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     31,316
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 5,645
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 719,353
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,578,580
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      528,270
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            32,911
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     404,961
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     437,872
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         90,398
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,360
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  91,758
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        39,004
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,754
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,377
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   51,377
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        39,342
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       27,693
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          32,144
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GREENVILLE, Executor of the Estate of Susan R. Bowman, Deceased, v. McClain BOWMAN.

No. 46146.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 29, 1971.

Robertshaw, Merideth & Swank, Green-ville, for appellant.

Lake, Tindall & Hunger, Greenville, for appellee.

SMITH, Justice:

The First National Bank of Greenville, as Executor of the last will and testament of the late Susan Ireys Bowman, has appealed from a decree of the Chancery Court of Washington County which upheld the renunciation of that will by McClain Bowman, surviving husband of the testatrix, certain instruments signed by him and purporting to waive his right to do so notwithstanding.

The issue was a narrow one and the case has not been without considerable difficulty for this Court. The divergent views of the contending parties have been presented by counsel for each side with outstanding ability. Certainly, The First National Bank, as executor of the will, has ably and vigorously discharged the duty which rested upon it as such fiduciary to oppose renunciation of the will.

No salutary purpose would be served by narration of the background facts in this case. However, a careful consideration of the record has convinced us that the issue presented to the chancellor for determination was one of fact. On review of the chancellor’s decision of that issue as the trier of facts we must accept the evidence which supports or reasonably tends to support his findings, as well as all inferences favorable to such findings which reasonably may be drawn from it. So considered, the evidence was sufficient to sup*552port the chancellor’s findings and, in any event, we are unable to say that he was manifestly wrong. Patterson v. Estate of Ollie Ervin, 230 So.2d 563 (Miss.1970); Rainey v. Rainey, 205 So.2d 514 (Miss.1967); Hall’s Adoption v. Hall, 202 So.2d 641 (Miss.1967); Saxon v. Harvey, 190 So.2d 901 (Miss.1966); Ellis v. Ellis, 248 Miss. 483, 160 So.2d 904 (1964).

Therefore, the decree appealed from will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and RODGERS, BRADY and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anatol Zurkhan, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 225]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), *338rendered February 3, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of sexual abuse in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, criminal contempt in the second degree and tampering with a witness in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to four concurrent terms of six months concurrent with five years probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial and that there is no basis for reversal (see, *People v*D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, *lv denied*81 NY2d 884). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30351]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[FE Docket No. 97-81-NG]


Office of Fossil Energy; Sierra Pacific Power Company, Order 
Granting Long-Term Authorization to Import Natural Gas From Canada

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Order.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy of the Department of Energy gives 
notice that it has issued an order granting Sierra Pacific Power 
Company authority to import from Canada up to 15,000 MMBtu per day of 
natural gas for the period of April 1, 1997, through March 31, 2000. 
This natural gas will be purchased from Amoco Canada Petroleum Company 
Ltd. and may be imported near Eastport, Idaho/Kingsgate, British 
Columbia.
    This order is available for inspection and copying in the Office of 
Natural Gas & Petroleum Import and Export Activities Docket Room, 3F-
056, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0350, (202) 586-9478. The docket room is open between the hours 
of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. November 7, 1997.
Wayne E. Peters,
Manager, Natural Gas Regulation, Office of Natural Gas & Petroleum 
Import and Export Activities, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 97-30351 Filed 11-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
EXHIBIT 15.1

LOGO

TIAN YUAN LAW FIRM

LOGO
 35


LOGO
 C


LOGO
 11


LOGOLOGO
: 100033

11TH FLOOR, TOWER C,
CORPORATE SQUARE, 35 FINANCIAL STREET, BEIJING 100033, CHINA

LOGO
 TELEPHONE: + 86 10 8809 2188


LOGO
 FACSIMILE: + 86 10 8809 2150

June 2, 2010

China Nuokang Bio-Pharmaceutical Inc.

No. 18-1 East Nanping Road

Hunnan National New
& High-tech Development Zone

Shenyang, Liaoning Province

Peoples Republic of China 110171

Dear
Sirs,

We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the headings Risk Factors and Regulations
in China Nuokang Bio-Pharmaceutical Inc.s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the month of June 2010.



Your faithfully,



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ Tian Yuan Law Firm
Tian Yuan Law Firm
Exhibit



Exhibit 10(w)(i)





 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166




CERTIFICATE RIDER


Group Policy No.:    91360-2-G


Policyholder:    Northrop Grumman Corporation


Effective Date:    July 1, 2016




The certificate is changed as follows:


Applicable to Basic Life Insurance for all employees of the Policyholder participating in one of the following executive classes: Class I – Chief Executive Officer (CEO); Class II – Elected Officers, direct reports to CEO; Class III – Elected Officers, non-direct reports to CEO; or Class IV – all other Vice Presidents of NGC 


In the GENERAL PROVISIONS section, replace Beneficiary with the following:


“Beneficiary 


You may designate a Beneficiary in Your application or enrollment form. You may change Your Beneficiary at any time.  To do so, You must send a Signed and dated, Written request to Us using a form satisfactory to Us. Your Written request to change the Beneficiary must be sent to Us within 30 days of the date You Sign such request. 


You do not need the Beneficiary’s consent to make a change.  When We receive the change, it will take effect as of the date You Signed it.  The change will not apply to any payment made in good faith by Us before the change request was recorded.


If two or more Beneficiaries are designated and their shares are not specified, they will share the insurance equally.


If there is no Beneficiary designated or no surviving designated Beneficiary at Your death, We will determine the Beneficiary according to the following order:


		
	1.
	Your Spouse or Domestic Partner; 


		
	2.
	Your child(ren), if there is no surviving Spouse or Domestic Partner; or


		
	3.
	Your estate.


  
Any payment made in good faith will discharge our liability to the extent of such payment.


If a Beneficiary or a payee is a minor or incompetent to receive payment, We will pay that person's
Guardian.”


    
This rider is to be attached to and made part of the certificate.


CR2000
#### Benton J. GUIDRY, as Administrator of the Estate of his minor son, David W. Guidry v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY.

No. 62632.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Benton J. Guidry, as Administrator of the Estate of his minor son, David W. Guidry, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 359 So.2d 637.

Writ denied. The result is correct.
#### INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. CITY OF HALLANDALE, Florida, a municipal corporation, et al., Respondents. Clifton MEEKINS et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF HALLANDALE, Florida, a municipal corporation, et al., Respondents.

Nos. 40118, 40135.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 3, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 17, 1971.

Marion E. Sibley and Allan M. Glaser of Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Miami Beach, for Investment Corp. of South Florida.

Ellis Spencer & Butler and Ralph R. Quillian, Hollywood, for Clifton Meekins, and others.

Fred J. Ward of Crouch, Ward & Africano, Hallendale, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, having certified to us that its decision in the cases of City of Hallandale v. Meekins et al., and City of Hallandale v. Investment Corporation of South Florida (Fla.App.1970), 237 So.2d 318, passes upon a question of great public interest, we accepted jurisdiction for review pursuant to Article V, Section 4(2) of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.

After hearing oral argument and carefully reviewing the briefs and the record, we have come to the conclusion that the decision of the District Court is correct and we adopt it as the decision of this

*254Court. The writ, therefore, is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

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

CARLTON, J., dissents.
SECTION III 

Group Agreements 

37.3.1
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF BENEFIT SUSPENSION FOR 

CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION PLAN

ITEM NO. 37 SECTION III FILE 1 of 2

Group Name Local Union

Associated General Contractors of Illinois Various Teamster Local Unions

National Master Freight Agreement Various Teamster Local Unions

Nuclear Power Construction Labor Agreement Various Teamster Local Unions

Ohio Valley Construction Employers Council Inc Teamsters Local Union No. 697

37.3.2
37.3.3
37.3.4
37.3 5
37 3 6
37.3.7
37.3.8

Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department









37.3.18
37.3.19
37.3.20
37.3.21
37.3.22
37.3.23

37.3.25
37.3.26
37.3.27






























































37.3.90
37.3.91
37.3.92
37.3.93
37.3.94
37.3.95
37.3.96
37.3.97
37.3.98
37.3.99
37.3.100
37.3.101
37.3.102
37.3.103
37.3.104
37.3.105
37.3.106
37.3.107
37.3.108
37.3.109

Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN H. JACKSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

N. AKABIKE, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-16109 

D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01442-JLT-EPG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 8, 2022

**

Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner John H. Jackson appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate 

indifference to her serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 16 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-16109 

2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jackson 

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was 

deliberately indifferent in treating Jackson’s stomach issues. See id. at 1057-60

(prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard

a risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or difference of 

opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate 

indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a prisoner 

alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show that the 

delay caused significant harm).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United 

States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          78,992
<SECURITIES>                                    22,199
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,046
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,859
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               198,375
<PP&E>                                          16,294
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,031
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,282
<BONDS>                                          1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,031
<OTHER-SE>                                     192,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,072
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,101
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,657
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,446
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,272
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,174
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,174
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>