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

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                      OCT-30-1997
<CASH>                                                 73,800
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         246,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      377,900
<PP&E>                                                931,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                        492,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,082,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 343,100
<BONDS>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                            7,400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        1,082,600
<SALES>                                               471,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      471,000
<CGS>                                                 354,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         436,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      8,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        14,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    14,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           14,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0
        



</TABLE>
260 La. 69

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edwin Leonard BIAGAS.

No. 51516.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1971.

John J. Dolan, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted of armed robbery. LSA-RS 14:64. He appeals.

The defendant reserved and perfected one bill of exception based on the' trial judge’s denial of his motion for a new trial. A bill of exception taken to the overruling of a motion for new trial, based upon an allegation that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence, presents nothing for review. State v. Grey, 257 La. 1070, 245 So.2d 178 (1971); State v. Ponthieux, 254 La. 482, 224 So.2d 462 (1969); State v. Poole, 203 La. 1032, 14 So.2d 826 (1943).

The appellant additionally urges as patent error (error discoverable by review *78of the pleadings and proceedings, La.C.Crim.P. Art. 920) the circumstances that the jury verdict was not unanimous (11-1), as permitted by Louisiana law in non-capital felonies which are necessarily punishable by imprisonment at hard labor. La. Const, of 1921, Art. 7, Section 41, La.C. Crim.P. Art. 782. However, we have consistently rejected the contention that this procedure offends any federal constitutional guarantee. State v. Jones, 257 La. 966, 244 So.2d 849 (1971); State v. Schoonover, 252 La. 311, 211 So.2d 273 (1968).

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3934]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[STB Finance Docket No. 33347] <SUP>1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On January 28, 1997, Joseph C. Szabo, on behalf of the 
United Transportation Union-Illinois Legislative Board, filed a 
petition to reject this notice of exemption and for stay of the 
effectiveness of the exemption. Union Pacific replied on January 30, 
1997. The petition will be considered by the entire Board in a 
separate decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Union Pacific Railroad Company--Trackage Rights Exemption--Elgin, 
Joliet and Eastern Railway Company

    Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company has agreed to grant 
overhead trackage rights to Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union 
Pacific) over 11 miles of rail line between milepost 25.2 near Chicago 
Heights, IL, and milepost 36.2 near Griffith, IN. The transaction was 
expected to be consummated on, or as soon as possible after, January 
31, 1997.
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice 
contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab 
initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may 
be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not 
automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33347, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20423 and served on: Joseph D. Anthofer, 
General Attorney, 1416 Dodge Street, #830, Omaha, NE 68179.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the 
trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk 
and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as 
modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 
653 (1980).

    Decided: February 10, 1997.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3934 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50534

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAUL GARCIA-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-852-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Garcia-Garcia (Garcia) pleaded guilty to illegal

reentry and was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment, three

years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. 

Garcia appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court

mistakenly believed that the Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory

when it sentenced him. In addition, Garcia argues that his

sentence is unreasonable and that the enhancement provisions of 8
No. 05-50534

-2-

U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

The record belies Garcia’s contention that the district

court sentenced him believing that the Guidelines were still

mandatory. At sentencing, the district court stated that it knew

that it was not bound by the Guidelines. Furthermore, there is

no indication that the sentence the district court imposed, which

was at the low end of the guidelines range of imprisonment, was

unreasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554

(5th Cir. 2006).

Garcia’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although Garcia contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Garcia

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from First Church
Financing Corporation financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,607
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,077,790<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F2>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,727,409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F2>
<BONDS>                                      9,086,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     414,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,727,409
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,013,174
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               125,557
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             822,344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 65,273
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,473
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,473
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F3>
<FN>
<F1>Mortgage loans net of purchase discount
<F2>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet
<F3>Not applicable
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# Fo urth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 19, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00811

- CV

Richard O. WEED , Timothy A. Weed, and Rees R. Oliver, III

, Appellants

v.

FROST BANK , Individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Rees R. Oliver, Jr. Deceased, Ap pellees

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- PC

- 2024A Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellants’ unopposed second motion for extension of time to file the appellants’ brief is granted. We order appellants to file the appellants’ brief by April 18, 2018. Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a timely motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the co urt of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance

.

________ _________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of March, 2018

.

____ _______________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
exhibit4_1






EXHIBIT 4.1


AMENDMENT TO TAX BENEFIT PRESERVATION PLAN
This AMENDMENT, dated as of March 4, 2014 (this “Amendment”), to the Tax Benefit Preservation Plan, dated as of September 29, 2011 (the “Plan”), by and between USEC Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Computershare Inc. (successor-in-interest to Mellon Investor Services, LLC), a New Jersey limited liability company (the “Rights Agent”).  
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Company and the Rights Agent previously entered into the Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26 of the Plan, the Company and the Rights Agent may from time to time supplement or amend any provision of the Plan in accordance with the terms of such Section 26.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual agreements set forth in this Amendment, the Company and the Rights Agent agree as follows: 
1.Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.
2.Clause (i) of Section 7.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to replace the words “September 29, 2014” with the words “March 4, 2014”.
3.Exhibit B to the Plan (Form of Right Certificate) is hereby amended to replace the words “September 29, 2014” with the words “March 4, 2014” in all places where such words appear.
4.Exhibit C to the Plan (Summary Of Rights To Purchase Series A Preferred Shares) is hereby amended to replace the words “September 29, 2014” with the words “March 4, 2014” in all places where such words appear.
5.This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof and, except as expressly set forth herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect and be otherwise unaffected hereby.
6.This Amendment shall be deemed to be a contract made under the internal laws of the State of Delaware and for all purposes shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of such State applicable to contracts to be made and performed entirely within such State.
7.This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed, shall be deemed to be an original and all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same document. 


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date and year first written above.


USEC INC.,
a Delaware corporation




By:   /s/ John C. Barpoulis    
Name: John C. Barpoulis
Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer




COMPUTERSHARE INC. (successor-in-interest to MELLON INVESTORS SERVICES LLC),
as Rights Agent




By:   /s/ Dennis V. Moccia    
Name: Dennis V. Moccia
Title: Manager, Contract Administration
























































SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT TO  TAX BENEFIT PRESERVATION PLAN
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**302 Certifications**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

###### **CERTIFICATION OF VERITAS DGC INC.**

###### ** **

I, Thierry Pilenko, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer, certify that:

 

1.   Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Veritas DGC Inc.;

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)               Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)              Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)               Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.   The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

 
| June 1,  2005 |
|--------------------|
|               | /s/  THIERRY PILENKO |   |
|               | Thierry Pilenko |
|               | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 373-374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-40]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96-257, RM-8966]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Cloudcroft, New Mexico

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Robert 
J. Flotte seeking the allotment of Channel 250C1 to Cloudcroft, New 
Mexico, as the community's first local aural transmission service. 
Channel 250C1 can be allotted to Cloudcroft in compliance with the 
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements without the 
imposition of a site restriction, at coordinates 32-57-30 North 
Latitude and 105-44-42 West Longitude. Mexican concurrence in the 
allotment is required since the community is located within 320 
kilometers (199 miles) of the U.S.-Mexican border.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before February 18, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before March 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

[[Page 374]]

In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Barry 
D. Wood, Esq., Mark A. Brinton, Esq., Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & 
McDonough, P.C., 2300 M Street NW., Suite 900, Washington, DC 20037 
(Counsel to petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-257, adopted December 
20, 1996, and released December 27, 1996. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW, Washington, D.C. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-40 Filed 1-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1486

BENJAMIN ROBERTS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

AMERICAN MEDICAL LABS, now known as Quest

Diagnostics Nichols Institute,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief

District Judge. (CA-03-1044-A)

Submitted: August 25, 2004 Decided: September 13, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jackson Mitchell,

HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Roberts appeals the district court’s order

granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this employment

discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court from the bench. See Roberts v. Am. Med. Labs,

No. CA-03-1044-A (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 19, 2004 & entered Mar. 22,

2004); R. Vol. 3. 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.

AFFIRMED