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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
            Appendix A to Item 601(c) of Regulation S-K
               Commercial and Industrial Companies
                    Article 5 of Regulation S-X
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,431,235
<SECURITIES>                                   221,735
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,895,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,783,887
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,116,449
<PP&E>                                     162,167,893
<DEPRECIATION>                              81,577,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             125,946,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,371,055
<BONDS>                                      5,204,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          150,000
<PREFERRED>                                  1,692,641
<COMMON>                                    27,659,855
<OTHER-SE>                                  58,199,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               125,946,735
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,317,763
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,370,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               241,240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             256,581
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,449,479
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,724,063
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,725,416
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              2,239,045
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,964,461
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.26
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 21, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 128116 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman,

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 128116 

 COA: 256872 

Kent CC: 96-006355-FH 

JAMES ROBERT RENO, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 12, 2004 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

d0914 

I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 21, 2005
 

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31577]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5931-1]


Science Advisory Board; Notification of Public Teleconference 
Meeting

December 18, 1997.
    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 
notice is hereby given that the Science Advisory Board's (SAB) 
Executive Committee, will conduct a public teleconference meeting on 
Thursday, December 18, 1997, between the hours of 12:00 and 2:00 pm, 
Eastern Time. The meeting will be coordinated through a conference call 
connection in Room 2103 of the Mall at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. The public is welcome to 
attend the meeting physically or through a telephonic link. Additional 
instructions about how to participate in the conference call can be 
obtained by calling Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson at (202) 260-8414 by 
December 12, 1997.
    In this meeting the Executive Committee plans to review reports 
from several of its Committees. Expected reports include: (1) 
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC)--a) Review of the Toxic 
Release Inventory; and b) Review of the Waste Research Strategy; (2) 
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC)--Review of the 
Ecological Research Strategy. Please contact Ms. Tillery-Gadson a week 
prior to the meeting to confirm that a given report will be reviewed.
    Any member of the public wishing further information concerning the 
meeting or wishing to submit comments should contact Dr. Donald G. 
Barnes, Designated Federal Official for the Executive Committee, 
Science Advisory Board (1400), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-4126; FAX (202) 260-9232; and 
via the INTERNET at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8eeceffce0ebfda0eae1e0ceebfeefe3efe7e2a0ebfeefa0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ea888b98848f99c48e8584aa8f9a8b878b8386c48f9a8bc48d859c">[email protected]</span></a>. Copies of the relevant 
documents are available from the same source.

    Dated: November 25, 1997.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 97-31577 Filed 12-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated: March 8, 2011  | By:                           |          /s/ Paul Interrante          |   |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |  Paul Interrante         |                                                                                                                            |
|                       |  Chief Executive and     |                                                                                                                            |
|                       |  Chief Financial Officer |                                                                                                                            |
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 221 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 221

  To amend title 5, United States Code, to modify the oath of office 
taken by individuals in the civil service or uniformed services, and of 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2021

  Ms. Eshoo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 5, United States Code, to modify the oath of office 
taken by individuals in the civil service or uniformed services, and of 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF OATH OF OFFICE FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE CIVIL 
              SERVICE OR UNIFORMED SERVICES.

    Section 3331 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:
``Sec. 3331. Oath of office
    ``An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an 
office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, 
shall take the following oath: `I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 
that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States 
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith 
and allegiance to the same; that I place this obligation above that to 
any individual, political party, or faction; that I take this 
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of 
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of 
the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.' This section 
does not affect other oaths required by law.''.
                                 <all>
```
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-11-0000780 05-JAN-2012 10:54 AM NO. SCAD-11-0000780

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs. ROBERT M. M. SETO, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 11-072-8996)

ORDER OF SUSPENSION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.) Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice to Respondent Robert M. M. Seto, the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto, and the record, it appears the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) suspended Respondent Seto from the practice of law before its Office for four years. It further appears this court, on November 10, 2011, issued a notice and order requiring Respondent Seto, in accordance with Rule 2.15(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai ' i (RSCH), to show cause as to why the same or substantially equivalent discipline should not be imposed in the State of Hawai ' i and, in his response, Respondent Seto did not establish any of the four grounds available under RSCH Rule 2.15(c)(1)-(4) to avoid reciprocal discipline in this jurisdiction. It further appears that Respondent Seto assisted his son, Jeffrey Seto, to continueto represent clients before the USTPO while his son was a registered patent agent, thereby violating the Hawai ' i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) Rule 5.1(c)(1) (“A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer’s violation of the rules of professional conduct if . . . the lawyer . . . with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved . . . .”); HRPC Rule 8.4(a) (“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . violate the rules of professional conduct [and] knowingly assist . . . another to do so . . . .”); and HRPC Rule 8.4(c) (“It is professional misconduct to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, . . . deceit, or misrepresentation . . . .”), though Respondent Seto did so absent a selfish motive. Therefore,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Seto is suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for a period of two years, effective 30 days from entry of this order, as provided by RSCH Rule 2.16(c). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai ' i, Respondent Seto shall pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely submission of a bill of costs, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.3(c). IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Seto shall, within ten (10) days after the date of this order, file with this court an affidavit in full compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, January 5, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

2
#### L. T. HANKS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Respondent.

No. JJ-127.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 21, 1978.

L. T. Hanks, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Hanks, an inmate, petitions for writ of habeas corpus. He is serving consecutive five year sentences for two escape convictions. His accumulated gain-time was taken away without notice or hearing due to those convictions. He contends he was denied due process as afforded by *Wolff v. McDonnell,*418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). The state merely responds by quoting Section 944.28(1) (1977), which permits the Division, without notice or hearing, to declare a forfeiture of all gain-time earned by the prisoner prior to escape following his conviction for escape.

Despite the intriguing question raised by petitioner and the inadequate return by the state, we are compelled to deny the petition. The Florida Supreme Court in *Morgan v. Cook,*344 So.2d 577 (Fla.1977) considered the same point and found 944.28(1) constitutional, relying on *Rankin v. Wainwright,*351 F.Supp. 1306 (M.D.Fla.1972). Our review of the record in *Morgan v. Cook*shows petitioner pled guilty and was sentenced to six months for his escape. Although the rationale is not set out in the opinion, apparently the Supreme Court found the judicial determination of guilt in the escape attempt was sufficient due process for the forfeiture of gain-time.

The petition is DENIED.

MILLS, A. C. J., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7791

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RAMON RICARDO LORA,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 03-6500

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RAMON RICARDO LORA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR99-196-DKC, CA-02-4197-DKC)

Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003
2

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

No. 02-7791 affirmed and No. 03-6500 dismissed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Ramon Ricardo Lora, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan Edwin Foreman, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

The cases have been consolidated on appeal. In No. 02-7791,

Ramon Ricardo Lora appeals the district court order denying his

motion to compel the Government to comply with a written agreement.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See United States v. Lora, No. CR-99-196-DKC; CA-02-4197-DKC

(D. Md. Nov. 6, 2002). 

In No. 03-6500, Lora seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his motion for leave to file a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion out of time and denying reconsideration of

that order. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When,

as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on

procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue

unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim

of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was

correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684

(4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)),

cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Lora has not made the requisite
4

showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029

(2003).

Accordingly, in No. 02-7791, we affirm, and in No. 03-6500, we

deny 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.

No. 02-7791- AFFIRMED

No. 03-6500 - DISMISSED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132698-9(50) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY 

Stephen J. Markman, INSURANCE COMPANY, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 132698 

 COA: 260203 

Court of Claims: 03-000139-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 132699 

 COA: 260204 

Court of Claims: 03-000140-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 6, 2007 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

p0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31830]



[[Page 64393]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings:

    Purpose/Agenda: To review individual grant applications.
    Name of SEP: Clinical Sciences.
    Date: December 4, 1997.
    Time: 1:00 p.m.
    Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Room 4104, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. Priscilla Chen, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4104, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1787.

    Name of SEP: Microbiological and Immunological.
    Date: December 11, 1997.
    Time: 1:30 p.m.
    Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Room 5112, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. Gilbert Meier, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5112, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1169.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review Small Business Innovation Research.

    Name of SEP: Chemistry and Related Sciences.
    Date: December 2, 1997.
    Time: 11:30 a.m.
    Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Room 4172, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. Donald Schneider, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4172, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1727.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the above 
meetings due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the grant review and funding cycle.
    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. Applications 
and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the applications 
and/or proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 1, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-31830 Filed 12-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
International Association of Machinists Motor City Pension Fund

EIN/Plan #: 38-6237143/001 

Checklist Item #12 – Demonstration that the Proposed Suspension is Reasonably Estimated to 

not Materially Exceed the Level Necessary to Avoid Insolvency

Does the application include a demonstration that the proposed suspension is not projected to 

materially exceed the level necessary to avoid insolvency, including illustrations regarding the 

plan’s solvency ratio and available resource? 

See section 4.03. 

Document 12.1 provides a demonstration that the proposed suspension is not projected to 

materially exceed the level necessary to avoid insolvency. 
International Association of Machinists Motor City Pension Fund

EIN/Plan #: 38-6237143/001 

Checklist Item #12 – Demonstration that the Proposed Suspension is Reasonably Estimated to 

not Materially Exceed the Level Necessary to Avoid Insolvency

12.1 

Document 12.1 

Proposed Suspension Will Not Materially Exceed 

 the Level Necessary to Avoid Insolvency 

This application filed on behalf of the Pension Plan includes an actuarial certification of plan 

solvency under ERISA § 305(e)(9)(c)(i) and IRC Section 432(e)(9)(C)(i) as of the effective date of 

the proposed benefit suspension, which is January 1, 2018. 

Exhibit IV of Checklist Item #7 provides an illustration showing that the proposed suspension is 

reasonably estimated to avoid insolvency, but not to materially exceed the level needed to 

avoid insolvency throughout the extended period. Exhibit IV also includes a year-by year 

solvency projection with the solvency ratio and separately identifies the market value of assets, 

contributions, investment earnings, plan benefits and expenses. 

Exhibit IV requires that each participant’s and beneficiary’s proposed suspension benefit be 

reduced by the greater of 5% of the reduction in payment proposed for that participant or 

beneficiary or 2% of that participant’s or beneficiary’s payment determined without regard to 

the proposed reduction. For those under age 75 as of January 31, 2018 and for this 

determination, 209 participants and beneficiaries had a 5% less reduction to their proposed 

suspension benefit and 555 participants and beneficiaries had 2% of their benefit determined 

without regard to the proposed reduction. For those aged 75 to 80 as of January 31, 2018 and 

for this determination, 8 participants and beneficiaries had a 5% less reduction to their 

proposed suspension benefit and 64 participants and beneficiaries had 2% of their benefit 

determined without regard to the proposed reduction. There were also 323 participants and 

beneficiaries whose benefit was not changed at all with the proposed benefit reduction due to 

the individual limitations noted on Checklist Item #2, pages 2.1 and 2.2, that also had no change 

in benefit for this determination. 

Exhibit IV is based on the actuary’s interpretation of the requirements under Revenue 

Procedure 2016-27, Section 4.03. 

Exhibit VII of Checklist Item #7 describes each of the assumptions used, as required under 

Revenue Procedure 2016-27, Section 4.02(3).