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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              THIS   SCHEDULE    CONTAINS   SUMMARY    FINANCIAL
                              INFORMATION    EXTRACTED    FROM   THE   FINANCIAL
                              STATEMENTS   AS  OF   September   30,1997  AND  IS
                              QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
                              STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK>                                                 863557
<NAME>                        SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                          1,000
<CURRENCY>                                       US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                               10,087
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        99,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                           3,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    132,343
<PP&E>                                              429,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                      105,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      467,743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                70,068
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                 42
<OTHER-SE>                                          258,003
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        467,743
<SALES>                                             524,999
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    524,999
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       472,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      (409)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    3,470
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      49,845
<INCOME-TAX>                                         20,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  29,645
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         29,645
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .69
        
<FN>
EPS-PRIMARY  and  EPS-DILUTED  are  restated to include the impact of  Financial
Accounting  Standards  Board Statement No. 128 and the effect of a 3-for-2 stock
split payable on March 12, 1998.
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### ROYAL AMERICAN INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Petitioner, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 72-644.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 14, 1972.

Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from financial
statements included in the A. T. Cross Company Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended October 2, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                OCT-2-1999
<CASH>                                          34,888
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,418
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,556
<INVENTORY>                                     21,363
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,101
<PP&E>                                         121,266
<DEPRECIATION>                                  82,942
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,587
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,648
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,658
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,714
<SALES>                                         85,951
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,554
<CGS>                                           50,290
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                51,358
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   158
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,449)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,757)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     443
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,249)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.62)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Timothy J. Muris, Chairman

Sheila F. Anthony

Mozelle W. Thompson

Orson Swindle

Thomas B. Leary

________________________________________________

In the Matter of )

)

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V. )

a foreign corporation, )

)

)

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, ) 

a corporation, and ) Docket No. 9300

)

) PUBLIC VERSION

PITT-DES MOINES, INC. )

a corporation. )

________________________________________________)

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Pursuant to FTC Rule of Practice § 3.52(a), 16 C.F.R. § 3.52(a), Complaint Counsel hereby

gives notice that it will appeal, against Respondents Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., Chicago

Bridge & Iron Company, and Pitt-Des Moines, Inc., the Order entered by the Administrative Law

Judge in the above captioned proceeding.

DATE: June 26, 2003

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________

Rhett Krulla

Counsel Supporting the Complaint

Bureau of Competition
Federal Trade Commission

Washington, D.C. 20580
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Hector F. Ruiz, Jr. hereby certify that on June 27, 2003:

I caused one original and twelve copies of Complaint Counsel’s Notice of Appeal to be

served upon the following person by hand delivery:

Office of the Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

Room H-159

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

I caused one copy of Complaint Counsel’s Notice of Appeal to be served by hand

delivery upon the following person:

Hon. D. Michael Chappell

Administrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commission

Room 104

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

I caused copies of Complaint Counsel’s Notice of Appeal to be served upon the

following person by facsimile and Federal Express:

Jeff Leon, Esq.

35 W. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60601-9703

Fax Number: (312)558-5700

_______________________

Hector F. Ruiz, Jr.

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Timothy J. Muris, Chairman

COMMISSIONERS:
Mozelle W. Thompson
Orson Swindle
Thomas B. Leary
Pamela Jones Harbour
In the Matter of
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
a foreign corporation,
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Docket No. 9300
a corporation, and
Pitt-Des Moines, Inc.,
a corporation.

NOTICE SCHEDULING ORAL ARGUMENT

The oral argument on the appeal and cross-appeal from the Initial Decision in this matter
has been scheduled for Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., in the Federal Trade
Commission’s Hearing Room 532, Headquarters Building, located at 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C., 20580. -

Each side will be allotted forty-five minutes to present its argument. Respondents will
have the opportunity to open and close the argument.

Pall § bub

Donald S. Clark
Secretary

By direction of the Commission.

SEAL
ISSUED: October 21, 2003
#### Harry Arthur HARRINGTON et ux. v. The KROGER COMPANY.

No. 53817.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 7, 1973.

In re: Harry Arthur Harrington and Lois S. Harrington applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 279 So.2d 814.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
#### The ZACK CO., Appellant, v. HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF HOLLYWOOD, a corporation existing under the laws of the United States of America, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-941.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 15, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE v. Robert Lee THOMAS.

No. 38185.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 216 So.2d 25.
Exhibit 10.6 Conflicts of Interest Agreement








CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AGREEMENT







AGREEMENT dated this 17th day of June 2013, by and between Domain Media Corp. (hereinafter “DMC”), a Nevada Corporation, with offices located at 1854 E. Scorpio Place, Suite 201, Chandler, AZ 85249 and Chris J. Kern, President of DMC.




The parties hereto agree and acknowledge that by virtue of Chris J. Kern’ other business activities outside of DMC, certain potential conflicts of interest may arise.




In an effort to resolve such potential conflicts of interest, we have entered into this written agreement with Chris J. Kern: 




·

any business opportunities that Chris J. Kern may become aware of independently or directly through his association with DMC that relates to the business services offered by DMC would be presented by him solely to us; 




·

any business opportunities disclosed to Chris J. Kern by the management of other entities would not be presented by him to DMC if so requested by them;  




·

any business opportunities disclosed to Chris J. Kern by DMC would not be presented by him to any other entity, unless and until DMC has passed upon same; and

 

·

in the event that the same business opportunity is presented to Chris J. Kern by both DMC and any other business entity, he shall only render his services to the business entity that first disclosed such business opportunity to him.

The above constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the 17th day of June 2013.  




DOMAIN MEDIA CORP.







By: /s/ Chris J. Kern                                        

Chris J. Kern, President




By: /s/ Chris J. Kern                                        

Chris J. Kern, Individually
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT JEFFREY SINNOTT, Petitioner

v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL), Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 351 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 5th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>        SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>       9-MOS

       
<CAPTION>
                                              EXHIBIT 27 (b)


           Crown Central Petroleum Corporation and Subsidiaries
                   Financial Data Schedule - As Revised
                 (In thousands, except per share amounts)


                                         NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                         SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
                                         ------------------

<CASH>                                         $      6,503
<SECURITIES>                                         43,387
<RECEIVABLES>                                       100,535
<ALLOWANCES>                                           (656)
<INVENTORY>                                         110,544
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    268,045
<PP&E>                                              628,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                      335,301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      606,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               190,500
<BONDS>                                             126,483
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             50,182
<OTHER-SE>                                          157,666
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        606,994
<SALES>                                           1,203,654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,203,654
<CGS>                                             1,068,921
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,068,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     94,524
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       (377)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   10,652
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      31,854
<INCOME-TAX>                                         11,958
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  19,896
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         19,896
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          2.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          2.03


        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                             $ 1,016,979
<SECURITIES>                       $         0
<RECEIVABLES>                      $ 1,830,070
<ALLOWANCES>                       $         0
<INVENTORY>                        $         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   $ 3,183,171
<PP&E>                             $17,569,604
<DEPRECIATION>                     $ 4,520,525
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     $16,850,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              $ 5,318,774
<BONDS>                            $         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              $    19,100
<PREFERRED>                        $   175,000
<COMMON>                           $ 8,240,605
<OTHER-SE>                         $(1,952,490)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       $16,850,989
<SALES>                            $ 7,219,706
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   $ 7,843,732
<CGS>                              $ 3,496,876
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      $ 7,307,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   $         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   $         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 $   385,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    $   149,903
<INCOME-TAX>                       $         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                $   149,903
<DISCONTINUED>                     $         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    $         0
<CHANGES>                          $         0
<NET-INCOME>                       $   149,903
<EPS-BASIC>                        $      0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                      $      0.04


</TABLE>
No. 10115.

#### Lorenz et al. *v.*Rampp.

Decided March 31, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Washington county.

*Messrs. McGinnis & Morris*and *Mr. N. E. Kidd,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Follett & Follett,*for defendant in error.

Judg*402ment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

March 5, 2013

Ms. Carolyn Crotts

State of Florida

Re: In the Matter of Equifax Information Services LLC, File No. 102 3252 

Dear Ms. Crotts:

Thank you for your comment regarding the Federal Trade Commission’s consent

agreement in the above-entitled proceeding. The Commission has placed your comment on the

public record pursuant to rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. §

4.9(b)(6)(ii), and has given it serious consideration.

The Commission appreciates your support of the proposed settlement. The Commission

is committed to protecting consumers in financial distress as well as safeguarding consumer

privacy and believes that the proposed order with Equifax Information Services LLC (“Equifax”)

will further this objective.

Having considered all of the facts of this case and all of the comments submitted in

response to the proposed order, the Commission has determined that the public interest would

best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without any modifications. The

final Decision and Order and other relevant materials are available from the Commission’s

website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of

sources in its work. The Commission thanks you again for your comment.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Leibowitz and Commissioner Wright not

participating.

Richard C. Donohue

Acting Secretary
1

Memorandum

To: Docket

From: Barry Garelick, OTAQ/OAR

Date: June 16, 2011

Subject: Labeling for E85, mid-and high-level ethanol blends, and blender pumps

There are currently about 2,300 E85 pumps and 215 blender pumps dispensing mid- and highlevel gasoline-ethanol blends (typically E20 or E30 and above).

1

 Both E85 and blender pumps 

generally have labels or other signage that clearly identifies mid- and high-level ethanol blends 

as such and indicates which nozzle or selector button dispenses those higher blends. Labels for 

these pumps also typically make clear that mid- and high-level gasoline-ethanol blends are for 

flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) only. This portion of the label reflects that introduction of these blends 

into commerce for use in any other vehicles is prohibited under the Clean Air Act unless and 

until the particular blend receives a waiver and is registered under the Act. In addition, 

misfueling or causing misfueling of other vehicles with mid- and high-level blends may

constitute or cause tampering with vehicle emission controls, which is also prohibited. EPA has 

previously advised that retail stations selling mid- and high-level blends may reduce the risk of a 

violation by clearly marking the pumps dispensing those blends as for FFVs only.

Below are some photographs of E85 and mid-level blender pumps that illustrate that the various 

blends are clearly labeled, that the pumps differentiate between conventional gasoline and midand high-level ethanol blends, and that the labels generally communicate that the mid- and highlevel ethanol blends are for FFVs only. The photographs were taken as part of the first 

comprehensive survey of ethanol blender pumps.

 

1 The estimate for the number of E85 pumps is based on information contained at this site:

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/stations_counts.html

 The estimate for the number of blender pumps is based on information compiled by the Department of Energy, 

and is located here: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/technology_bulletin_0210.html
2
3
4
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 21, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-30988 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OCIE LEE PICKENS, JR, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CR-20007-10

-------------------- Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ocie Lee Pickens, Jr., appeals from the district court’s imposition of a 36-month sentence of imprisonment following the revocation of Pickens’s supervised release. Pickens contends that the sentence is plainly unreasonable under all the circumstances. He notes that his violations consist solely of Grade C violations, and that the range of imprisonment recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines is seven to thirteenNo. 02-30988 -2- months. He contends that his conduct on supervised release took a downward turn when he returned to Oakdale, Louisiana at the insistence of his probation officer. Pickens’s sentence was not plainly unreasonable given that it fell within the statutory maximum and was based on the district court’s determination that Pickens is in need of comprehensive drug rehabilitation during incarceration.
See United States v. Pena , 125 F.3d 285, 286, 288 (5th Cir. 1997) (upholding 24-month sentence for Grade C violations, where imprisonment range under the Sentencing Guidelines was three to nine months). The district court’s consideration of Pickens’s need for drug rehabilitation during incarceration also falls within 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D), which requires the district court to consider the need for “medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” Further, by taking into account the needs of the people of Oakdale, and the young people in Pickens’s family, the district court also properly considered the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). Because Pickens has failed to show that the sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.