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

<ARTICLE>                     9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         177,913
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               136,714
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    776,975
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       4,143,369
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         4,232,789
<LOANS>                                     32,723,855
<ALLOWANCE>                                    237,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,669,420
<DEPOSITS>                                  24,559,270
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,495,623
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            853,540
<LONG-TERM>                                  7,946,026
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,719
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,809,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              39,669,420
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                628,878
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               54,130
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                72,195
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               755,203
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             315,210
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             511,489
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          243,714
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,965
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   7
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 83,674
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                183,078
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     183,078
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  7,710
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   102,371
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.76
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.51
<LOANS-NON>                                    319,324
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                38,686
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 67,857
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               233,280
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                       941
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              237,186
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           237,186
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
Document

Exhibit 10.1
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE HYSTER-YALE GROUP, INC.
EXECUTIVE EXCESS RETIREMENT PLAN
(Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2016)


    Hyster-Yale Group, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby adopts this Amendment No. 2 to the Hyster-Yale Group, Inc. Executive Excess Retirement Plan (Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2016) (the “Plan”), to be effective as of January 1, 2021.  Words used herein with initial capital letters which are defined in the Plan are used herein as so defined.


Section 1


    The last sentence of Section 3.3 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) for 2012, the Participant's Excess Employer Contribution Benefit shall be an amount equal to the Matching Employer Contributions attributable to the Excess 401(k) Benefits he is prevented from receiving under the Profit Sharing Plan because of various Code limitations or as a result of his deferral of Compensation under this Plan and (b) in no event shall the Participant be entitled to receive Excess Employer Contribution Benefits under the Plan effective with the first payroll period ending on or after May 1, 2020 and ending with the first payroll period ending on or after December 31, 2020.”


Section 2


Section 3.4 of the Plan is hereby amended adding a new sentence to the end thereof to read as follows:


“Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, in no event shall the Participant be entitled to receive a Transitional Benefit under the Plan for the 2020 Plan Year.”




EXECUTED  this 19th day of January, 2021.




HYSTER-YALE GROUP, INC.


By: /s/ Suzanne S. Taylor
Title:  Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
H. Res. 328

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

January 25, 1994.

Resolved, That the House has learned with profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable Thomas P. ‘‘Tip’’ O’Neill,

Jr., former Member of the House for 17 terms and Speaker

of the House of Representatives for the Ninety-fifth, Ninetysixth, Ninety-seventh, Ninety-eighth and Ninety-ninth Congresses.

Resolved, That in the death of the Honorable Thomas P.

‘‘Tip’’ O’Neill, Jr. the United States and the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts have lost a valued and eminent public servant and citizen.

Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions

to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of

the deceased.
2

HRES 328 EH

Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased.

Attest:

Clerk.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39572

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH MICHAEL HOLLADAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 647

Filed: September 27, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of one year, for sexual battery of a minor child, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Joseph Michael Holladay pled guilty to sexual battery of a minor child. Idaho Code § 18-

1508A. The district court sentenced Holladay to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of one year. Holladay appeals asserting the district court abused its 

discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Holladay’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Filed 1/21/15 P. v. Acosta CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSE LUIS MADRIGAL ACOSTA,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B256111 (Super. Ct. No. 1433594)

(Santa Barbara County)

Jose Luis Madrigal Acosta appeals the judgment entered after he pled no contest to battery causing inju ry (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d )). After appellant pled no contest, he was referred to mental health treatment court and was accepted into its program. The trial court suspended impositi on of sentence and placed appellant on probation with various terms and conditions. Because appellant pled no contest pr ior to a preliminary hearing, the relevant facts are derived from the probati on report. Appellant allowed two homeless men to stay with him at his residence. When the owner or manager of the property told appellant the two men had to leave, appellant punched him in the face and head. The victim's injuries included a laceration above his right eye that required five stitches.2 We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examining the record, co unsel filed an opening brief raisi ng no issues and requesting that we independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On September 19, 2014, we advised appellant in writi ng that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any c ontentions or issues he wished to raise on appeal. Appellant did not respond.

We have examined the record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. ( People v. Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.3 Patricia L. Kelly, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

________________ ______________

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statement (No. 333-03516) on Form S-3 and the registration statement (No. 333-87626) on Form S-8 of Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2007, relating to the consolidated balancesheets of Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of theyears in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, which report appears in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. 

 

Birmingham, Alabama 

March 30, 2007
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

 AIR AND RADIATION

July 10, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Files on CD for EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-DRAFT-0745

FROM: Christine Brunner

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

The enclosed CD contains the following the folder

GEM_P2V1.0 Power User Release.zip

that contains folders and files associated with docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-DRAFT-0745.

1) GEM phase II stringencies

2) GEM phase II stringency executable

3) REVS_Common

4) 420b15076-GEM User Manual.pdf

5) Memo to Docket -GEM bug fixed.docx

6) Memo to Docket_ResultsComparison_ExecutableGEM_2015-07-09 AC.docx

7) readme.txt
# C_2023015EN.01003301.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 2 de León — Spain) — ACNC v Unicaja Banco, SA

(Case C-652/21) (1)

(2023/C 15/39)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MICHAEL A. MARKS, P.A. d/b/a

SOMERSET CHIROPRACTIC CENTER a/a/o PETER DEFILIP P O
, Appellant,

v.

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 469

[ January 12, 2022 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Marni A. Bryson , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 50 2020CC5014

and 50 2020AP83

.

Douglas H. Stein of Douglas H. Stein, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellant.

Michael A. Rosenberg and Adrianna de la Cruz

- Muñoz of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.

G ERBER
, J

.

The provider appeals from the county court’s final order granting the insurer’s motion to dismiss the provider’s declaratory judgment action. The county court concluded dismissal was proper primarily because the provider could have filed a breach of contr act action instead of a declaratory judgment action. The provider argues this conclusion was in error, because section 86.111, Florida Statutes (2020), expressly provides:

“ The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment

for declara tory relief. ”

We agree with the provider that the county court’s conclusion was in

error . However, we agree with the insurer that the provider did not raise this argument to the county court. The provider claims it raised this argument at the hearing on the insurer’s motion to dismiss, but our review of the transcript indicates otherwise. B ecause th e ar g ument now raised on appeal was not raised below, we must affirm. S ee Sunset Harbour

Cond o. Ass ’ n v. Robbins , 914 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla. 2005) (“As a general rule, it is not appropriate for a party to raise an issue for the first time on2 appeal. ... [T] o be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower c ourt and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”) ( citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

On all other arguments which the provider has raised on appeal, we

affirm without further discussion.

Affirmed.

M AY and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT NO. 99



Supplemental Segment Information

|In thousands                     | Three Months Ended
January 31, | Nine Months Ended
January 31,
|-------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | -----------------------------
|                                 |                                | (Restated)                   
|                                 | 2003                           | 2002                         
|Orders Received:                 |                                |                              
|Sign Making & Specialty Graphics | $  62,845                      | $  57,119                    
|Apparel & Flexible Materials     | 38,463                         | 35,259                       
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing       | 23,131                         | 21,526                       
|                                 | $124,439                       | $113,904                     
|                                 | =======                        | ======                       
|                                 |                                |                              
|                                 | January 31,2003                | April 30,2002                
|Backlog:                         |                                |                              
|Sign Making & Specialty Graphics | $      487                     | $   1,089                    
|Apparel & Flexible Materials     | 27,658                         | 27,284                       
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing       | 6,169                          | 4,276                        
|                                 | $ 34,314                       | $ 32,649                     
|                                 | =======                        | ======
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<CIK> 0000053456
<NAME> JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                  US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,742,116
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    507,347
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         501,600
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       995,258
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,746,321
<COMMON>                                       153,713
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      510,769
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            938,437
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,602,919
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          211,500    <F1>
<PREFERRED>                                     37,741
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,173,424
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             126,400
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  40,616
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       11
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        2,500
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                93,505
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,457,705
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,746,321
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      951,228
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            59,351
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     748,160
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     807,511
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        143,717
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,044
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 146,761
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        53,660    <F2>
<NET-INCOME>                                    93,101
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      5,303
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   87,798
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        25,000    <F3>
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       88,165
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         115,818
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> REPRESENTS COMPANY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE PREFERRED
<F1> SECURITIES OF $125,000.
<F2> INCLUDES DIVIDENDS ON COMPANY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE
<F2> PREFERRED SECURITIES OF $5,350.
<F3> REPRESENTS COMMON STOCK DIVIDENDS PAID TO PARENT CORPORATION.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Dorothy Sellers GRICE v. Joseph L. GRICE.

No. 53919.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: Joseph L. Grice applying for Cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 281 So.2d 145.

Application denied. The result is correct.

BARHAM, J.,

concurs in the denial, only on the basis that defendant-relator cannot maintain action for nullity where he personally appeared and confessed judgment in a court with jurisdiction. However, the judgment for alimony could not have been obtained under Civil Code Art. 160. The husband here obtained the divorce in Mexico with the wife appearing. That court had jurisdiction over her person and validity of the judgment is not contested. Only three conditions permit an award of alimony under Art. 160, (1) Where the wife obtained the divorce, (2) where the husband obtains the divorce under laws of the State of Louisiana on the sole ground of living separate and apart a specific time, *or*(3) where the husband obtains a divorce which is valid in another state or foreign country which had no jurisdiction over her person.
#### Isadore TERL, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Neil C. McMULLEN, Circuit Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-474.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 8, 1970.

Prohibition denied.
#### SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW HAVEN et al. v. Donald G. ARNOLD.

No. 4599.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1972.

*217Rudolph R. Schoemann, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Kenneth V. Ward, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Before REGAN, REDMANN and BOU-TALL, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal on the merits of their suit for property damages resulting from a vehicular collision.

Plaintiffs’ pickup truck was in the extreme right inbound lane, and defendant’s medium-weight (Valiant) car in the extreme left, of an expressway which had four lanes in each direction. The vehicles were traveling about 35 mph in a 45-mph zone. Heavy rain was falling. Defendant admittedly lost control of his car and spun irito plaintiffs’ lane, ending athwart that lane and the adjacent emergency shoulder lane. Plaintiffs’ vehicle then struck defendant’s.

Since defendant’s lack of control was established, it became defendant’s burden to exculpate himself. He testified a gust of wind hit him, driving him to his left towards the raised, concrete median; he pulled right to avoid hitting it and skidded into the spin. The trial judge evidently believed defendant’s explanation and, unless as a matter of law it must be rejected, we are not in a position to hold this credibility determination erroneous.

Plaintiffs cite King v. King, 253 La. 270, 217 So.2d 395 (1968), as requiring rejection of the wind-gust explanation. But there the driver’s speed was 50 to 55 mph despite heavy rains and hurricane-caused winds of 49.5 mph with gusts up to 71.3 mph, and the court concluded “such speed prevented him from retaining control * >(c s{« >>

In our case the 35 mph speed (of both vehicles) does not appear to have been excessive, in ordinary heavy rain, on a controlled-access expressway. Thus *King*does not require rejection of defendant’s wind-gust • explanation.

Because defendant’s reaction to the wind-gust did cause plaintiff’s damages, the question is whether his action was unreasonable. We are unable to say it was; it appears to have been an almost automatic response of the kind the ordinarily prudent driver might well experience under the circumstances.

Because the trial judge accepted defendant’s testimony, which is not inherently incredible, we conclude that we must, and we do, affirm his judgment.

Affirmed.