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

<ARTICLE> CT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1993             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1993             DEC-31-1997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,963              12,335,311
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         19                       0
<COMMON>                                           717                   1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,565                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,963              12,335,311
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,624               2,261,896
<INCOME-TAX>                                       514                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                883                 271,226
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       883                 271,226
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.29                  271.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.13                  271.23


</TABLE>
#### BYNUM *v.*WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 39,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided December 17, 1962.*

*632Before Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney, Mar-bury and SybERT, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This application for leave to appeal from a denial of post conviction relief was not filed within thirty days from the passage of the order appealed from, as required by Maryland Rule BK 46 a, and must therefore be denied.

*Application denied.*
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 29

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Federal excise

tax rates should not be increased.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. NEAL of North Carolina submitted the following resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

Federal excise tax rates should not be increased.

Whereas the Federal Government imposes excise taxes on a

variety of items, including cigarettes, wine, beer, distilled

spirits, gasoline, telephone services, and air transportation;

Whereas Federal excise tax revenues were $36.8 billion in

1988 which was 3.9 percent of all Federal revenues for

that year;

Whereas State governments depend heavily on excise taxes to

finance essential services, and increases in Federal excise

taxes during this decade have (by reducing consumption)

already reduced State revenues by $3.7 billion and will

cost them that much again before 1994;
2

HRES 29 IH

Whereas Federal excise taxes are imposed on transactions regardless of the income levels of the consumers and as

such are regressive taxes which cause economic hardships

to those least capable of paying additional taxes;

Whereas the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was designed to assist

low and middle income taxpayers and any increase in excise tax rates would directly contradict the intent of that

Act;

Whereas increasing selective taxes such as excise taxes is bad

budgetary policy in attempting to meet the deficit reduction targets; and

Whereas no sound policy basis exists to support proposals to

increase the current Federal excise tax rates: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that Federal excise tax rates should not be

3 increased.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

J anuary 9 , 2019

t0108 

# Order

Clerk January 9 , 2019

158881 & (21)(22)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158881

COA: 346727

Huron CC: 18

- 306293

- FH

JUSTIN MARK WOLSCHLAGER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals

is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions

presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 298 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 112

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 298

                          [Report No. 103-334]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
  bill (H.R. 3167) to extend the emergency unemployment compensation 
   program, to establish a system of worker profiling, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 8, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                 House Calendar No. 112
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 298

                          [Report No. 103-334]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
  bill (H.R. 3167) to extend the emergency unemployment compensation 
   program, to establish a system of worker profiling, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 1993

  Ms. Slaughter, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
  bill (H.R. 3167) to extend the emergency unemployment compensation 
   program, to establish a system of worker profiling, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
3167) to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program, to 
establish a system of worker profiling, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as 
read.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 231 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 231

 To limit the acceptance of travel and related expenses by Members of 
                               Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 1993

Mr. Obey submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To limit the acceptance of travel and related expenses by Members of 
                               Congress.

    Resolved, That clause 4 of rule XLIII is amended by designating the 
first paragraph as paragraph (a) and adding the following new paragraph 
(b):
    ``(b)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), a Member of the 
House of Representatives shall not accept payment of travel and related 
expenses (food and beverage, lodging, entertainment, hospitality) with 
respect to attendance at any conference, meeting, or similar function, 
from--
            ``(A) any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
        for-profit business enterprise, or any submit or affiliated 
        organization thereof;
            ``(B) any organization or corporation which maintains a 
        political action committee; or
            ``(C) any organization or corporation registered under the 
        Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946, or any successor 
        statute; or any organization or corporation which employs or 
        retains a registered lobbyist.
    ``(2) The foregoing paragraph shall not apply to--
            ``(A) travel expenses provided by any organization 
        described in section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code;
            ``(B) travel expenses provided in connection with a fact-
        finding event directly related to official duties in the home 
        state of the Member; or
            ``(C) travel expenses provided in connection with a 
        speaking engagement of an individual Member, at a meeting 
        organized for that purpose or at which that individual is a 
        principal speaker.''.

                                 <all>
```
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 889

To exclude from income amounts received under part A of title IV of the

Social Security Act for the purposes of determining the amount of

benefits to be provided under the Food Stamp Act of 1977.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 16, 1993

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To exclude from income amounts received under part A

of title IV of the Social Security Act for the purposes

of determining the amount of benefits to be provided

under the Food Stamp Act of 1977.

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

3 SECTION 1. FOOD STAMPS.

4 Section 5(e) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7

5 U.S.C. 2014(e)) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new sentence: ‘‘Households shall also be entitled

7 to a deduction for the amount, if any, of benefits received
2

•HR 889 IH

1 under a State plan approved under part A of title IV of

2 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).’’.

3 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

4 The amendment made by this Act shall become effec5 tive 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
nvarticlesofmergeroftapi






  Business Entity - Filing Acknowledgement  12/24/2020  Work Order Item Number: W2020122201104-1012971 Filing Number: 20201120189 Filing Type: Articles of Merger Filing Date/Time: 12/14/2020 10:00:00 AM Filing Page(s): 6 Indexed Entity Information: Entity ID:  E0127052010-3 Entity Name:  IZEA WORLDWIDE, INC. Entity Status:  Active Expiration Date:  None Commercial Registered Agent CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY 112 NORTH CURRY STREET, Carson City, NV 89703, USA     BARBARA K. CEGAVSKE  Secretary of State        KIMBERLEY PERONDI  Deputy Secretary for  Commercial Recordings  STATE OF NEVADA     OFFICE OF THE  SECRETARY OF STATE  Commercial Recordings Division  202 N. Carson Street  Carson City, NV 89701  Telephone (775) 684-5708  Fax (775) 684-7138   North Las Vegas City Hall  2250 Las Vegas Blvd North, Suite 400  North Las Vegas, NV 89030  Telephone (702) 486-2880  Fax (702) 486-2888              The attached document(s) were filed with the Nevada Secretary of  State, Commercial   Recording Division. The filing date and time  have been affixed to each document,  indicating the date and time of filing. A filing number is also affixed and can be used to   reference this document in the future.                       Respectfully,     BARBARA K. CEGAVSKE             Secretary of State  Page 1 of 1  Commercial Recording Division  202 N. Carson Street  





 






 Filed in the Office of  Secretary of State  State Of Nevada Business Number E0127052010-3 Filing Number 20201120189 Filed On 12/14/2020 10:00:00 AM Number of Pages 6
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed January 5, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D19-2369

Lower Tribunal No. F13-20045

________________

Justin C. Allen,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. 

Fernandez, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, 

Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

In this appeal from a conviction and sentence following a probation 

violation, the issue is whether the trial court erred by not ordering an 

additional competency hearing sua sponte. “A trial court’s failure to hold a 

competency hearing is subject to the abuse of discretion standard.” Wall v. 

State, 326 So. 3d 1065, 1070 (Fla. 2021). 

Prior competency issues raised by defense counsel resulted in findings 

of incompetency until, after the passage of time, the Appellant’s competency 

was diagnosed as being restored by three medical professionals. At the 

consequent probation violation hearing, the Appellant made comments 

which he now contends should have alerted the trial court to the need for 

further competency evaluations. At the time, however, these statements did 

not cause the trial court or defense counsel to question the Appellant’s 

competency. The record reflects that the Appellant at the revocation hearing 

never stated that he did not understand the proceeding. To the contrary, he 

acknowledged that a plea had been offered, briefly spoke well about defense 

counsel, and accepted his sentence.

This case ultimately turns on the trial court’s evaluation of the 

Appellant’s conduct and statements during the evidentiary hearing. These 

matters take meaning from their context, which the trial court is best situated 

to judge. In these circumstances, we cannot find that the trial court abused 
3

its discretion. Id.; see also Dessaure v. State, 55 So. 3d 478, 482–83 (Fla. 

2010).

Affirmed.
#### Milton TRAPP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-437.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 20, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2014

p0519 

# Order

Clerk May 27, 2014

148325

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Pl aintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148325

COA: 316954

Eaton CC: 04

- 000275

- FH

GREGORY LYNN ALANA

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Walter E. MARTIN and Frances N. Martin, his wife, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. Robert M. FRYE and Olive R. Frye, his wife, Appellees (Defendants).

No. AA-414.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 18, 1977.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1977.

Sam E. Murrell & Sons, Orlando, for appellants.

Burke D. Chester, Daytona Beach, for appellees.

BY THE COURT.

Upon considering the appellants’ brief and the record, we find no reversible error.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

BOYER, C. J., and MILLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


          <ARTICLE> UT
          <CIK> 0000040779
          <NAME> GPU, INC.
          <MULTIPLIER> 1,000
          <CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
                 
          <S>                              <C>
          <PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
          <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1996
          <PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1996
          <PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1996
          <EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
          <BOOK-VALUE>                        PER-BOOK
          <TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          6,371,936
          <OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>        1,391,389
          <TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>               990,907
          <TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>           2,072,295
          <OTHER-ASSETS>                             0
          <TOTAL-ASSETS>                    10,826,527
          <COMMON>                             314,458
          <CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            749,859
          <RETAINED-EARNINGS>                2,103,263
          <TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     3,080,425  <F1>
          <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                444,000  <F2>
          <PREFERRED>                           98,116
          <LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>               3,024,177
          <SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                   168,960
          <LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                  0
          <COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>       132,561
          <LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>        174,435
          <PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>             10,000
          <CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>            7,736
          <LEASES-CURRENT>                     151,864
          <OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     3,534,253
          <TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>     10,826,527
          <GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          2,993,411
          <INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 134,387
          <OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         2,469,899
          <TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         2,604,286
          <OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>              389,125
          <OTHER-INCOME-NET>                    16,451
          <INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>       405,576
          <TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             187,877  <F3>
          <NET-INCOME>                         217,699
          <PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                0
          <EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        217,699
          <COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             173,482
          <TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            186,478
          <CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>               427,947
          <EPS-PRIMARY>                           1.80
          <EPS-DILUTED>                           1.80
          <FN>
          <F1> INCLUDES REACQUIRED COMMON STOCK OF $87,155.
          <F2> INCLUDES SUBSIDIARY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE PREFERRED
          <F2> SECURITIES OF $330,000.
          <F3> INCLUDES DIVIDENDS ON SUBSIDIARY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE
          <F3> PREFERRED SECURITIES OF $21,666 AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS OF
          <F3> SUBSIDIARIES OF $11,776.
          </FN>
                  <PAGE>

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
(Nos. 333-90319 and 333-90313) on Form S-8 of CareAdvantage,  Inc. of our report
dated February 22, 2001, on our audit of the consolidated  financial  statements
of  CareAdvantage,  Inc.,  which report  appears in the December 31, 2000 annual
report on Form 10-KSB of CareAdvantage, Inc.

/s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 2001
Government National Mortgage Association

15 Year Multiple Issuer Pool Numbers

NOTE:

CUSIP MIP # POOL 

TYPE

SECURITY 

INTEREST 

RATE

TERM 

YEARS

INITIAL PAY 

DATE

TOTAL AMOUNT TOTAL # OF 

LOAN 

PACKAGES

TOTAL # OF 

MORTGAGES 

(Loans)

MA9574 13 36179YT79 36179YT53 MA9572 SF 4.000 15 05/20/2024 $3,179,441.00 4 Created April 16, 2024 *The indicated columns represent an aggregated value to date, please see the Finalized MIP Listing for the actual total The Finalized List with the actual totals for each issued MIP will be published on the third business day prior to the end of that Issue Month. This is the aggregated list of the 15 Year Multiple Issuer Pool Numbers for Issue Month of April 2024. APRIL 2024 MA9796 JM 4.500 15 05/20/2024 $1,149,000.00 1 1 6 36179Y3D4 6.500 15 05/20/2024 $746,388.00 4 *

MA9577 SF 155 36179YUA0 MA9575 SF 5.500 15 05/20/2024 $28,815,660.00 34 44 36179YT87 36179YT61 MA9573 SF 4.500 15 05/20/2024 $9,715,202.00 16 1

SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT JANET KERR AT 1-800-234-4662, OPTION #3 OR 212-815-3221. * *

MA9579 SF 7.500 15 05/20/2024 $78,347.00 1 1 80 36179YUC6 MA9576 SF 6.000 15 05/20/2024 $15,331,056.00 24 167 36179YT95 SF 5.000 15 05/20/2024 $38,754,815.00 38
#### Maurice Winterton CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-510.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 24, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Russell E. Seay, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 12(b)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
COMPUTATION OF RATIO


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
											    Three Months Ended
											      March 31, 2000
											    ------------------
												(millions)


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<S>                                                                                                 <C>
Earnings, as defined:
  Net income ..............................................................................         $110
  Income taxes ............................................................................           58
  Fixed charges, as below .................................................................           43

    Total earnings, as defined ............................................................         $211

Fixed charges, as defined:
  Interest charges ........................................................................         $ 40
  Rental interest factor ..................................................................            1
  Fixed charges included in nuclear fuel cost .............................................            2

    Total fixed charges, as defined .......................................................         $ 43

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ........................................................         4.91




RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS

Earnings, as defined:
  Net income ..............................................................................         $110
  Income taxes ............................................................................           58
  Fixed charges, as below .................................................................           43

    Total earnings, as defined ............................................................         $211

Fixed charges, as defined:
  Interest charges ........................................................................         $ 40
  Rental interest factor ..................................................................            1
  Fixed charges included in nuclear fuel cost .............................................            2

    Total fixed charges, as defined .......................................................           43

Non-tax deductible preferred stock dividends ..............................................            4
Ratio of income before income taxes to net income .........................................         1.53

Preferred stock dividends before income taxes .............................................            6

Combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends ......................................         $ 49

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends .................         4.31
</TABLE>