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



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

TOTAL-TEL USA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Exhibit 27 - FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 
JULY 31, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF 
OPERATIONS FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 1997 
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,183,923
<SECURITIES>                                   922,494
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,389,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,283,714
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,320,699
<PP&E>                                      16,614,565
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,050,117
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,076,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,382,011
<BONDS>                                      2,940,000
<COMMON>                                       196,875
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,426,224
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,076,289
<SALES>                                     62,484,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            62,534,982
<CGS>                                       50,713,044
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               50,713,044
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,168,176
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                74,504
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              76,271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,502,987
<INCOME-TAX>                                   621,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            881,187
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   881,187
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        





</TABLE>
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

August 21, 2015

Peter C. Thomas, Esquire

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

1155 F. Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004

Re: In the Matter of ZF Friedrichshafen AG and TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.

Docket No. C-4520

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This letter responds to the Application for Approval of Divestiture of the TRW L&S 

Business (“Divestiture Application”) filed by TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. (“TRW”) on 

May 29, 2015. The Divestiture Application requests that the Federal Trade Commission 

approve, pursuant to the Order in this matter, TRW’s proposed divestiture of the TRW L&S 

Business to THK Co., Ltd. The Application was placed on the public record for comments until 

July 6, 2015. No comments were received.

After consideration of the proposed divestiture as set forth in TRW’s Divestiture 

Application, as well as other available information, the Commission has determined to approve 

the proposed divestiture. In according its approval, the Commission has relied upon the 

information submitted and representations made in connection with TRW’s Divestiture 

Application and has assumed them to be accurate and complete.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Wright dissenting.

Donald S. Clark

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BOBBY GENE GLOVER, JR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

M. S. EVANS, Warden; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-15761

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01759-JSW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Bobby Gene Glover, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.

FILED

MAR 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-15761

§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we vacate and remand.

The district court dismissed Glover’s action because he did not exhaust

administrative remedies at the second and final levels of review. However, Glover

received a favorable determination at the first level of review, where the prison

granted his grievance in part, thereby satisfying Glover. In light of our recent

decision, Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2010), Glover “ha[d] no

obligation to appeal from a grant of relief, or a partial grant that satisfie[d] him, in

order to exhaust his administrative remedies.” Id. at 685. Accordingly, we vacate

and remand for further proceedings. 

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.
Exhibit- 10.28




Integon National Insurance Company 
500 W. 5th Street 
Winston-Salem, NC 27101-2728
August 1, 2013
CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED


Maiden Insurance Company Ltd. 
Maiden House 
131 Front Street, 2nd Floor 
Hamilton, HM12, Bermuda
Attention: General Counsel
Re:       Termination of Personal and Automobile Quote Share Agreement 


Dear Sir/Madam:


You are hereby notified that the Interests and Liabilities Contract between Maiden Insurance Company, Ltd. (“Reinsurer”) and Integon National Insurance Company (“Integon”), attached to the Personal and Automobile Quota Share Agreement (the “Agreement”) effective March 1, 2010 is terminated effective as of 12:01 a.m. on August 1, 2013 (the “Termination Date”) pursuant to Article XVI.B, of the Agreement, as amended.  The parties agree that Reinsurer shall remain liable for losses occurring subsequent to the Termination Date under Policies in force as of the Termination Date.  For the avoidance of doubt, no new or renewal policies written by Integon or its subsidiaries on or after the Termination Date shall be ceded to Reinsurer under the Agreement and Reinsurer shall not be liable for any losses occurring under any such new or renewal Policies written after the Termination Date.


A copy of this Notice of Termination has been sent to the California Department of Insurance, Michigan Department of Insurance, Missouri Department of Insurance and North Carolina Department of Insurance as required by the Agreement.


Very truly yours,


INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

By:                     
     Name: Jeffrey Weissmann 
     Title: General Counsel & Secretary 

ACCEPTED:
 
MAIDEN INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. 

By:                     
     Name: 
     Title:







 





AM 20867803.5
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- FAA-2012-0083 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-022-AD

Accessory/Helicopters: Aeronautical Accessories Inc. High Landing Gear Aft Crosstube 

Assembly installed on certain Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., and Agusta S.p.A. model 

helicopters.

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 115 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: This proposed AD is prompted by three reports of failed crosstubes because of cracks 

and the proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of a crosstube, collapse of the landing 

gear, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. 

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $9,315 per aft crosstube

Labor per Helicopter

(1 x $85/work-hour)

(3 x $85/work-hour)

(0.5 x $85/work-hour)

(1 x $85/work-hour)

(24 x $85/work-hour)

(10 x $85/work-hour)

$85 for recordkeeping

$255

$42.5

$85

$2,040

$850

Other (Assumptions for 

cost)

- 14 repetitive visual inspections per year

- 3 skid gear inspections per year

- 2 fluorescent penetrant inspections per year

- 3 aft crosstubes would be replaced

Total Cost per Helicopter

Total US Fleet Cost $636,545

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Martin R. Crane
Converted by EDGARwiz


Execution




SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT

(Scottsburg Healthcare Center)




This Second Amendment to Purchase Agreement (Scottsburg Healthcare Center) is made effective December 21, 2008 by and between Vantage Medical, Inc., a Texas corporation, ("Purchaser") and National Assistance Bureau, Inc., an Indiana non-profit corporation ("Seller").




Recitals




A.

The parties entered into a Purchase Agreement (Scottsburg Healthcare Center) dated as of October 9, 2008, and a First Amendment to Purchase Agreement dated November 21, 2008 (collectively, the "Purchase Agreement", all capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined having the meanings ascribed to then in the Purchase Agreement).




B.

The parties wish to amend the Purchase Agreement as more particularly set forth herein,




Accordingly, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants contained in the Purchase Agreement and herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Purchase Agreement as follows:




1.

Section 8 of the Purchase Agreement is amended by deleting the second sentence in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:







"Date of_ Closing. The closing contemplated herein (the "Closing") shall occur at the offices of Seller's counsel in Atlanta, Georgia, on or before December 31, 2009 (the "Closing Date")."







2.

Section 13 of the Purchase Agreement is amended by deleting the second sentence in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:







"Assignment. Seller may not assign any of its right, title, or interest in and to this Agreement without the written consent of the Purchaser, not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Purchaser may not assign its right, title or interest in and to this Agreement without the consent of Seller, not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.




2.

The Purchase Agreement is unchanged except as specifically set forth herein.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has caused this Second Amendment to Purchase Agreement (Scottsburg Healthcare Center) to be executed on the day first written above.











SIGNATURES




PURCHASER:

SELLER:

Vantage Medical, Inc.

National Assistance Bureau, Inc.




By:  /s/ William F. Smith, President

By:  /s/ William R. Hill, President
258 La. 355

#### ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD v. PITTMAN CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., et al. (Trinity Universal Insurance Co.)

No. 51311.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1971.

In re: Orleans Parish School Board applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 244 So.2d 641.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### Barney R. McCULLERS, Appellant, v. William ANDERSON and C. M. Lance, Appellees.

No. M-466.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 25, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1970.

Hodges & Bergen, Lake City, for appellant.

Brannon, Brown, Norris, Vocelle & Haley, Lake City, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. Brown v. Tanner (Fla.App.1964), 164 So.2d 848; Pearson v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. (Fla.App.1966), 187 So.2d 343; Hankerson v. Wilcox (Fla.App.1965), 173 So.2d 747; Keller v. Florida Power & Light Company (Fla.App.1963), 156 So.2d 775.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.
<TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
For the Periods Ended September 30
(Dollars in thousands except per share data)

<CAPTION>
                                       Third Quarter              Nine Months
                                      1997      1996 (a)        1997      1996 (a)
                                   --------   ---------      --------    --------
<S>                               <C>         <C>           <C>         <C>  
Net income...................     $  50,145   $  38,217     $ 143,031   $ 116,115
                              
Preferred dividends..........            --          --            --           5
                              
Income available to common    
  shareholders...............     $  50,145   $  38,217     $ 143,031   $ 116,110
                              
                              
                              
                              
Weighted average of primary   
 common shares...............        85,999      88,116        86,284      88,788
                              
Weighted average of preferred 
  stock convertible to common 
  shares ....................            --          --            --          27
                              
Weighted average of fully     
 diluted common shares.......        85,999      88,116        86,284      88,815
                              
                              
Primary earnings per share    
  (income available to common 
  shareholders divided by 
  weighted average of common
  shares)....................     $    0.58   $    0.43     $    1.66   $    1.31
                              
                              
Fully diluted earnings per  
  share (net income divided 
  by weighted average of     
  fully diluted common
  shares)....................     $    0.58   $    0.43     $    1.66   $    1.31



Note:  The effect of stock options outstanding are not dilutive to earnings per
       share as defined in APB 15 and therefore are not included with the above 
       calculations.

(a)  Per share amounts and weighted average shares have been restated to reflect 
     a 3-for-1 stock split in December 1996.

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

** **

FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Hartford Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q the quarter ending January 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I StuartI. Greenwald, Treasurer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.            Thereport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.            Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

       /s/Stuart I. Greenwald            Stuart I. GreenwaldTreasurer

Date:  March 15, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF O'CHARLEY'S INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 29, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN O'CHARLEY'S INC'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                           1,616
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                        58
<INVENTORY>                                      4,505
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,455
<PP&E>                                         129,797
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,516
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 117,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,319
<BONDS>                                         44,928
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,592
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   117,159
<SALES>                                        164,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               164,530
<CGS>                                          135,071
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  135,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,251
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,944)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (797)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,147)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,147)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
1

FILED

January 14, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appe llate Court

Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

PAMELA ANN DRINNON BROOKS, )C/A NO. 03A01-9801-CH-00008

)

Plaintiff-Appellant,)

)

)

)

v . )APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE

)HAMBLEN COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT

)

)

)

)

JACK THOMAS BROOKS, JR., )

)HONORABLE JOYCE M. WARD,

Defendant-Appellee. )JUDGE

For Appellant For Appellee

JIM W. STAMBAUGH JILL R. TALLEY

Stambaugh Law Office Dandridge, Tennessee

Morristown, Tennessee

M E M O R A NDU M OP I N I O N
1

Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals, provides as follows:

The Court, with the concurrence of all judges

participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or

modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum

opinion when a formal opinion would have no

2

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED Susano, J.

Pamela Ann Drinnon Turner, formerly Brooks, filed a

post-divorce petition seeking sole custody of the parties’ minor

child, William Clayton Brooks (DOB: October 5, 1990). The trial

court held, in effect, that there had not been a sufficient

change in circumstances to warrant a change in the joint custody

arrangement previously decreed by the court. It denied the

petition and Mrs. Turner appealed, arguing that the evidence

preponderates against the trial court’s findings.

A trial court has broad discretion regarding a custody

determination. Brumit v. Brumit , 948 S.W.2d 739, 740 (Tenn.App.

1997). We will not disturb such a determination unless the

record reflects an abuse of that discretion. I d .

We find and hold that the evidence does not

preponderate against the trial court’s determination that the

facts before it did not warrant a change in the custodial

arrangement. We find no abuse of discretion in this case. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Our

affirmance is pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10(b), Rules of

the Court of Appeals. 1 Costs on appeal are taxed against the
precedential value. When a case is decided by

memorandum opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM

OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be

cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent

unrelated case.

3

appellant. This case is remanded to the trial court for

enforcement of that court’s judgment and collection of costs

assessed below, all pursuant to applicable law.

__________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.

CONCUR:

________________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.
#### Leroy Wright CHAMBERLIN, Appellant, v. Janice Helen CHAMBERLIN, Appellee.

No. 72-600.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 22, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         366,070
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       6,527,022
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               301,128
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    935,856
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         219,293
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           217,862
<LOANS>                                      6,456,921
<ALLOWANCE>                                     97,678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,736,247
<DEPOSITS>                                   7,403,433
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             99,327
<LONG-TERM>                                    316,323<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,673
<OTHER-SE>                                     679,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               8,736,247
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                385,312
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               33,853
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 6,682
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               425,847
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             159,617
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             175,974
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          249,873
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   56,650
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                270,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 69,286
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      42,860
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,860
<EPS-BASIC>                                     128.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   128.13
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0<F2>
<LOANS-NON>                                     15,163
<LOANS-PAST>                                    47,210
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0<F2>
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0<F2>
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               106,484
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   74,389
<RECOVERIES>                                    11,975
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               97,678
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0<F2>
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0<F2>
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0<F2>
<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES 94,048 IN CAPITAL NOTES.
<F2> THIS INFORMATION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR INTERIM REPORTING PURPOSES.
</FN>


</TABLE>