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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Fansteel Inc. as of September 30, 1999 and the
related  consolidated statement of income for the nine months ended September 30,
1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Company's Form
10Q filing for the period ended September 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          44,295
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,790,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                   285,311
<INVENTORY>                                 22,026,283
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,250,759
<PP&E>                                      72,342,192
<DEPRECIATION>                              51,717,872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              91,685,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,645,977
<BONDS>                                      2,306,746
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,747,145
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,339,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                91,685,279
<SALES>                                    110,015,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           110,015,590
<CGS>                                       90,836,079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              104,825,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               195,138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,123
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              81,688
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,995,177
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,584,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,411,177
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,411,177
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40


</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

    EXHIBIT 11  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
    (Dollars in thousands except per share data)



                                            Third Quarter              Nine Months
                                           1995        1994          1995        1994

    <S>                                 <C>         <C>           <C>         <C>     
    Net income......................... $  34,197   $  29,807     $ 100,733   $  86,183

    Preferred dividends................         7          46            70         277

    Income available to common
      shareholders..................... $  34,190   $  29,761     $ 100,663   $  85,906




    Weighted average of common
     stock equivalents.................    30,052      29,831        30,031      29,866

    Weighted average of preferred
      stock convertible to common
      stock equivalents................        59         201            97         430

    Weighted average of fully
     diluted common stock equivalents..    30,111      30,032        30,128      30,296


    Primary earnings per share
      (income available to common
      shareholders divided by weighted
      average of common stock
      equivalents)..................... $    1.14   $    1.00     $    3.35   $    2.88


    Fully diluted earnings per share
      (net income divided by weighted
      average of fully diluted
      common stock equivalents)........ $    1.14   $    0.99     $    3.34   $    2.84



    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.




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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,263
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,058
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,636
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     46,281
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,576
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,576
<LOANS>                                         76,819
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,182
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,551
<DEPOSITS>                                     123,167
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,452
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                642
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,876
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 140,551
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,034
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,087
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   281
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,402
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,790
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,868
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,534
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       46
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (1)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,820
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,820
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,215
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.91
<LOANS-NON>                                        384
<LOANS-PAST>                                       805
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,149
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       36
<RECOVERIES>                                        24
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,182
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,151
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             31
        

</TABLE>
#### Harry L. SNAVELY, Appellant, v. Percy DUMAR et al., Appellees.

No. 69-369.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth. District.

Jan. 23, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### MILU, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Donald C. DUKE, Appellee.

No. 71-368.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 7, 1971.

*84Alan B. Brody, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Cassel & Benjamin, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing his cause of action for want of prosecution, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.420(e), R.C.P., 30 F.S. A.

It is apparent from the record that action had been taken within one year by the plaintiff. This action was in the nature of filing a notice of hearing, which was held sufficient to constitute affirmative action by a plaintiff. Scarlett v. Frederick, 147 Fla. 407, 3 So.2d 165; City of Miami v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., Fla.App. 1962, 141 So.2d 285; Knowles v. Gilbert, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 660. Therefore, we find that the court erred in dismissing the cause pursuant to the provisions of the rule.

Appellee contends that notwithstanding the fact that the court may not have been justified in dismissing the matter, under the rule it had an inherent power to dismiss. In this contention we have examined the following: Eaton v. Harrison, 100 Fla. 1668, 132 So. 635; Reddish v. Forlines, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 703; Popkin v. Crispen, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 445; Shalabey v. Memorial Hospital of South Broward Hospital District, Fla.App.1971, 253 So.2d 712, (opinion filed October 27, 1971). Upon a full examination of these authorities and on the record in the instant case, we do not find a sufficient basis to justify the court’s dismissing the cause under its inherent power and, having found it lacked the authority to dismiss it under the rule, we therefore reverse the final judgment of dismissal here under review, with directions to reinstate the plaintiff’s last complaint and cause of action.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and the consolidated statements of operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        JAN-02-2000
<CASH>                                2,940,919
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                           191,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                           1,029,324
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      4,959,870
<PP&E>                               27,918,074
<DEPRECIATION>                       (9,603,519)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       30,667,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 8,884,596
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 44,540
<OTHER-SE>                           13,701,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         30,667,856
<SALES>                              94,798,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     95,204,840
<CGS>                                34,355,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        98,385,901
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       (249,673)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     (789,454)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (4,226,188)
<INCOME-TAX>                          1,512,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (2,714,188)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                         (2,714,188)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.61)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 11

                             FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC.
	      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                              DECEMBER 31,
                                            2004        2003

Net income                              $30,087,000  32,128,000

Common shares:

Weighted average shares
 outstanding during the
 period - used for basic
 earnings per share                      43,361,496  43,087,035

Shares issuable under
 stock options which are
 potentially dilutive                       951,373     867,855

Shares used for diluted
 earnings per share                      44,312,869  43,954,890

Earnings per share:
 Basic						$.69            .75

 Diluted                                  $.68            .73
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF STB SYSTEMS, INC. ON FORM 10K AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          30,639
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                       520
<INVENTORY>                                     48,993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,584
<PP&E>                                          19,742
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,156
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,865
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,312
<SALES>                                        266,270
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               266,270
<CGS>                                          222,018
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  222,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,636
<INCOME-TAX>                                       904
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,732
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,732
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14<F1><F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Earnings per share numbers have been adjusted to reflect a three-for-two stock
split of the Company's common stock on February 20, 1998
<F2>"EPS-Primary" represents Basic earnings per share as defined by SFAS 128
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7678 

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 

to direct the Secretary of Defense to include a description of programs 

to address and reduce the stigma associated with seeking assistance 

for mental health or suicidal thoughts in a report. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 20, 2020 

Mr. BRINDISI (for himself and Mr. KATKO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2020 to direct the Secretary of Defense to include 

a description of programs to address and reduce the 

stigma associated with seeking assistance for mental 

health or suicidal thoughts in a report. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Mental Health 

5 Stigma Reduction Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7678 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORTS ON SUICIDE PREVENTION PROGRAMS 

2 AND ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

3 DEFENSE. 

4 Section 741(a)(2) of the National Defense Authoriza5 tion Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116–92; 133 

6 Stat. 1467) is amended by adding at the end the following 

7 new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(J) A description of the programs carried 

9 out by the military departments to address and 

10 reduce the stigma associated with seeking as11 sistance for mental health or suicidal 

12 thoughts.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Dettrey *v.*Hazle Brook Coal Co., Appellant.

Argued March 14, 1934.

Before Tbexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham:, Baldbige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*436P. *B. Roads,*for appellant.

*Roger J. Rever,*for appellee.

July 13, 1934:

Per Curiam,

This is a compensation case. On May 1, 1931 a petition was presented for a modification of the agreement and for the termination of the compensation in which it was alleged that the claimant was not presently disabled from any injury received while in the employ of the petitioner; that his present condition is due to an ancient appendectomy.

The claimant was operated on for appendicitis in 1922. In October of 1929 he underwent an operation for a ventral hernia being an injury occurring during the course of his employment. Subsequently he was again put under the knife on January 9, 1931 for the purpose of breaking up adhesions. Dr. Bryson, who was present at the 1931 operation, testified that these adhesions were a result of the *appendicitis*operation. Dr. Patrick, who was also present at the operation, testified' that the third operation was performed for the purpose of breaking up the *hernia*adhesions. Dr. Barr, who performed the last operation, did not testify. Dr. Patrick gave a very detailed account of the operation and the referee evidently adopted his version and found that the adhesions were sequelae of the hernia operation. The judgment of. the referee affirmed by the board settles this phase of the case. Our court will not reverse the findings of fact when they are supported by competent testimony. There are numerous cases to this effect.

The other question before us is whether the man is totally disabled. It was argued that because he could *437walk and nse his arms, h© conld do light work, but we have the positive testimony of Dr. Patrick that “[He] can’t do a thing in the condition in which he is now.”

The order of the lower court affirming the order of the compensation board is affirmed. Appellant to pay the costs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Federal Trade Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of Commissioner

Rohit Chopra

 

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER ROHIT CHOPRA

Regarding the Request for Comment on the Funeral Rule 

Commission File No. P034410

February 4, 2020

Planning – and paying – for a funeral for a loved one is a difficult experience for many 

Americans. I look forward to closely reviewing the FTC’s Funeral Rule and our enforcement 

strategy, given the rate of noncompliance found in the agency’s undercover inspections.

1

I am particularly interested in an examination of the Funeral Rule Offenders Program (FROP), a 

program launched in 1996 and operated by the National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA), 

an industry lobbying group. When our undercover inspections find that funeral homes are not 

providing families with information required under the law, these funeral homes are almost 

always given the opportunity to pay fees to the government and to NFDA in order to enroll in the 

FROP and avoid a formal enforcement action by the FTC. The FTC also withholds the names of 

these lawbreaking funeral homes from the public when announcing the results of funeral home 

inspections, a privilege that no other industry under FTC jurisdiction enjoys. 

During this rule review, we will need to assess whether this arrangement is appropriate.

 

1

In our inspection results announced in 2018, over 20% of funeral homes inspected were found to be in noncompliance. 

FTC Undercover Inspections of Funeral Homes in 11 States Test Prompt Compliance with Funeral Rule Disclosure 

Requirements, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, (April 18, 2018), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/04/ftcundercover-inspections-funeral-homes-11-states-test-prompt.
#### Myra F. WOODARD v. The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA.

No. 61132.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1977.

In re: The Prudential Insurance Co. of America applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Red River. 350 So.2d 948.

Writ refused.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of SystemOne
Technologies Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
Paul I. Mansur, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven M. Healy,
Director of Finance and Administration of the Company, each hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (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. Date: April 29, 2004
    /s/  Paul I. MansurPaul I. MansurChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) Date: April 29, 2004
    /s/  Steven M. HealySteven M. HealyDirector of Finance and Administration
(Principal Financial Officer) A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the report
pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and, accordingly, is not being filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
(whether made before or after the date of the report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing).