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

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000315256
<NAME>PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                              PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                1,596,878
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 28,384
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                     509,278
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                   477,725
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,612,265
<COMMON>                                         1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  424,740
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                        336,006
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             761,821
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       25,000
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       516,485
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                   25,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                597,662
<LEASES-CURRENT>                           102,659
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             583,638
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>            2,612,265
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  328,694
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                        16,486
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 290,399
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 303,452
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     25,242
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           6,514
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              28,323
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    10,892
<NET-INCOME>                                17,431
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  1,325
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>               16,106
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                      77,826
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Clifford GEORGE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-30138.

D.C. No. CR-00-00142-ALH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

John Clifford George challenges the district court’s application of a two-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon. *See*USSG § 2Dl.l(b)(l).1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

George argues that the government failed to carry its burden of establishing possession of the weapon. *See United States v. Nelson,*222 F.3d 545, 550-51 *&*n. 3 (9th Cir.2000). However, George admits that the gun belonged to him, and the gun was found in his house in the same basement where he was cultivating marijuana. *See United States v. Kyllo,*37 F.3d 526, 531 (9th Cir.1994); *United States v. Gillock,*886 F.2d 220, 223 (9th Cir.1989). Moreover, the district court discredited the testimony of his common law wife that she had hidden the gun from George years *253prior, and such credibility determinations are entitled to deference on appeal. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3742(e); *United States v. Andra,*218 F.3d 1106, 1107 (9th Cir.2000). Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the district court erred. *See United States v. Parrilla,*114 F.3d 124, 126 (9th Cir.1997).

Similarly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to find that George carried his burden of establishing that it was “clearly improbable” that he possessed a weapon in connection with the offense. *See Nelson,*222 F.3d at 549.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. All references are to the November 1, 2000, version of the Sentencing Guidelines.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31399]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

DATE AND TIME: Friday, December 5, 1997, 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, N.W., Room 
540, Washington, DC 20425.

Status

Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Approval of Minutes of November 14, 1997 Meeting
III. Announcements
IV. Staff Director's Report
V. State Advisory Committee Appointments for Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and South Dakota
VI. Future Agenda Items
    10:00 a.m. Briefing on Asian Pacific Americans

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Barbara Brooks, Press and 
Communications (202) 376-8312.
Stephanie Y. Moore,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-31399 Filed 11-25-97; 12:29 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
#### David LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-899.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 30, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal quashed.
TS-EUTM01 

Attachment #4

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 1d 

Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical Substance at 

Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter – Manufacture and Processing 
TS-EUTM01

Atta

Manufacturing and Processin

Substance at Industrial Sit

Manufactur
TS-EUTM01

Atta

Manufacturing and Processin

Substance at Industrial Sit

Manufactur
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 3rd QUARTER 2008

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO

4-WEEK AND 6/26 6/30 7/3 15.00 25.00 23.00 69.00 -6.00

3&6 MONTH BILLS 7/3 7/7 7/10 15.00 25.00 23.00 62.00 1.00

7/10 7/14 7/17 15.00 25.00 23.00 52.00 11.00

7/17 7/21 7/24 20.00 25.00 23.00 51.00 17.00

7/24 7/28 7/31 12.00 25.00 23.00 56.00 4.00

7/31 8/4 8/7 20.00 28.00 25.00 56.00 17.00

8/7 8/11 8/14 27.00 28.00 25.00 59.00 21.00

8/14 8/18 8/21 30.00 28.00 25.00 67.00 16.00

8/21 8/25 8/28 30.00 28.00 25.00 59.00 24.00

8/28 9/2 9/4 26.00 28.00 25.00 68.00 11.00

9/4 9/8 9/11 20.00 26.00 23.00 74.00 -5.00

9/11 9/15 9/18 10.00 23.00 21.00 77.00 -23.00

9/18 9/22 9/25 10.00 23.00 21.00 77.00 -23.00

892.00 827.00 65.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

26-DAY BILL 8/19 8/20 30.00 30.00 0.00

Matures 9/15

18-DAY BILL 8/27 8/28 15.00 15.00 0.00

Matures 9/15

13-DAY BILL 9/2 9/3 7.00 7.00 0.00

Matures 9/16

120-DAY BILL 5/19 5/20 0.00 30.00 -30.00

Matures 9/17

-30.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

10-Year TIPS 7/7 7/10 7/15 8.00 8.00

20-Year TIPS-R 7/17 7/22 7/31 7.00 1.00

2-Year Note 7/21 7/23 7/31 31.00 1.00

5-Year Note 7/21 7/24 7/31 20.00 20.00 38.00

10-Year Note 7/30 8/7 8/15 15.00

30-Year Bond 7/30 8/8 8/15 11.00 2.00 43.50 -17.50

2-Year Note 8/25 8/27 9/2 31.00

5-year Note 8/25 8/28 9/2 20.00 22.00 29.00

10-Year Note-R 9/8 9/11 9/15 10.00 14.50 -4.50

2-Year Note 9/22 9/24 9/30 31.00

5-year Note 9/22 9/25 9/30 20.00 19.10 31.90

204.00 119.10 84.90

Estimates are italicized

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 119.90

R = Reopening
#### Alfred SPIVEY, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-961.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 9, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         3720000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9942000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    142000
<INVENTORY>                                    3348000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              25545000
<PP&E>                                        25166000
<DEPRECIATION>                                17591000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                35912000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         22841000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        341000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     7721000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  35912000
<SALES>                                       29633000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              29633000
<CGS>                                         24930000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 28819000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              483000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 492000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     53000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             492000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    439000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        


</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCTOBER 31, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-12325

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-02354-CV-T-27-EAJ

MARIE ORESTANO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(October 31, 2007)

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Marie Orestano appeals the order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of
2

disability insurance benefits, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and Supplemental Security

Income, 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). On appeal, Orestano argues that substantial

evidence does not support the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that

she was not disabled, and that the ALJ erred in relying on the testimony of a

vocational expert.

 We review a social security case to determine whether the Commissioner’s

decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal

standards were applied. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997). 

We “may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our

judgment for that of the Secretary.” Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th

Cir. 1990). 

A claimant bears the burden to prove that she is disabled, within the

meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th

Cir.1999). Where, as in this case, a claimant is not involved in a substantial

gainful work activity and has established a severe impairment that prevents her

from performing her past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to

demonstrate that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy

that the claimant can perform. Jones, 190 F.3d at 1228. The ALJ must articulate

specific jobs that the claimant is able to perform, and this finding must be
3

supported by substantial evidence, not mere intuition or conjecture. See Allen v.

Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1200, 1201 (11th Cir. 1989). 

Here, the ALJ found that Orestano was capable of performing a significant,

but not a full, range of sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567 and

416.967. The judge found that Orestano’s “ability to perform all or substantially

all of the requirements of sedentary work was impeded by additional exertional

and/or non-exertional limitations.” Therefore, the testimony of a vocational expert

was used “to help determine whether or not there [were] a significant number of

jobs in the national economy that the claimant could perform given her residual

functional capacity and other vocational factors.” We find that the ALJ did not err

in applying the correct legal standards and that his decision was supported by

substantial evidence.

AFFIRMED.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.47

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC. FLEXCOMP PLAN
(AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 2017)


WHEREAS, Darden Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Darden Restaurants, Inc. FlexComp Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective June 1, 2017) (the “Plan”); 
WHEREAS, the Plan has previously been amended and further amendment thereof is now considered desirable to remove the requirement that, with respect to future deferrals and re-deferrals, an elected distribution date must be an even-numbered year;  
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the power reserved to the Company by Section 7.5 of the Plan, and in exercise of the authority delegated to the Settlor Committee by resolution of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, the Plan is hereby amended in the following particulars, effective January 1, 2021:
  
1.By substituting the following for the first sentence of Subsection 6.2(a) of the Plan:
“Effective with deferral elections initially made with respect to the 2021 calendar year and forward, a specified distribution date may be any January of a future year that is at least one year subsequent to the date the compensation or bonus would otherwise be payable. For deferral elections initially made for prior calendar years, the specified distribution date may be any January of a future even-numbered year that is at least one year subsequent to the date the compensation or bonus would otherwise be payable, but, with respect to pre-2005 Accounts, shall not be later than the date the Participant attains age 70.”    


2.By deleting the phrase “an even-numbered year that is” from Subsection 6.2(c)(3)(ii) of the Plan. 










 




* * * * *
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both members of the Settlor Committee have caused this amendment to be executed.


									
	September 1, 2020


		/s/ Julie A. Griffin



	Date		Julie Griffin
			
	August 31, 2020		/s/ Pamela J. Price
	Date		Pam Price




    - 2 -
#### In the Matter of Lourdes Salgado, Petitioner, v Ruben Franco, as Chair of New York City Housing Authority, et al., Respondents.

[735 NYS2d 745]

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority dated January 7, 1998, terminating petitioner’s public housing tenancy for noncompliance with an agreement to maintain the continued absence of her mother from her apartment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Herman Cahn, J.], entered July 19, 1999) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that the stipulation was unfair or based on a misrepresentation was not raised at the hearing and therefore may not be judicially reviewed *(see, Matter of Featherstone v Franco,*95 NY2d 550, 554). Nor is our sense of fairness shocked *(see, id.)*by the evidence of petitioner’s mother’s ill health, at least where petitioner did not assert any attempts to find an alternative caregiver or residence for her mother. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Saxe, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.
Exhibit 32(a)


              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report  on Form 10-Q of CNF Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas W.
Stotlar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

   (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
     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:  May 9, 2005




/s/ Douglas W. Stotlar
---------------------------
Name:  Douglas W. Stotlar
Title:  Chief Executive Officer






                                                                Exhibit 32(b)

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CNF Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March  31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Schick,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:

   (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
     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:  May 9, 2005



/s/  Kevin Schick
---------------------
Name:  Kevin Schick
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
UAS Integration Office 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 2059 

Subject: Renewal of Exemption #11110 Trimble Navigation Ltd. 

Trimble Navigation Limited requests a renewal to Exemption #11110, Trimble Navigation Limited. 

Conditions in the Exemption #11110 have not changed. The same level of safety will continue to be 

achieved with a renewal. Trimble Navigation Limited understands that with the release of Part 107 the 

333 Exemption will not necessarily be required. The reason for the request of renewal is that Trimble 

Navigation Limited has a number of Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA) in place or pending. It is 

critically important to Trimble Navigation Limited that these COAs are maintained and pending COAs can 

be completed, this is achieved by a renewal of the Trimble's 333 Exemption. 

Trimble Navigation Limited wishes to expedite the approval of this renewal and, therefore, asks that it not 

be published in the Federal Register. This requested renewal would not set any precedent nor raise any 

novel issue. We ask that no public notice or vote be necessary. 

Sincerely, 

Aviation Manager 

Juniper Unmanned 

P.O. Box 18332, Golden, CO 80402 

303-907-6163 

Authorized representative for Trimble Navigation Ltd
Sorry...  is not a valid site.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

[X] **QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

For the transition period from to 

Commission File Number 000-00643

CORNING NATURAL GAS CORPORATION

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

**New York **16-0397420
(State of incorporation)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
**330 West William Street, Corning, New York 14830

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
**(607) 936-3755**
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [ ]

	

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [ ] No [ ]

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of "large accelerated filer", "accelerated filer", "non-accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large Accelerated Filer [ ] Accelerated Filer [ ] Non-accelerated Filer [ ] Smaller Reporting Company [X]

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [ ]No [X]

Indicate the number of Shares outstanding of the issuer's common stock as of the latest practicable date.

Common Stock, $5.00 par value
1,040,868
Class
Shares outstanding as of August 5, 2010
**(Page 2)**********