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


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           644,075
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         6,162,522
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                       0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   93,874,043
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        27,210,938
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          27,086,600
<LOANS>                                       99,022,327
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (353,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               235,950,142
<DEPOSITS>                                   126,200,919
<SHORT-TERM>                                  13,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            2,416,512
<LONG-TERM>                                   46,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             39,775
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                    46,653,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               235,950,142
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2,046,023
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2,098,294
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                       0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               4,144,317
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1,650,303
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,546,413
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1,597,904
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     21,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               131,237
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1,197,248
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  556,118
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       458,790
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     458,790
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .15
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                      2.87
<LOANS-NON>                                      275,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                           0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 332,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                          0
<RECOVERIES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                353,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             353,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                0
        


</TABLE>
SCWC-18-0000534

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

 

STATE OF HAWAI I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

PAMELA JOY NAILE,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-18-0000534; CASE NO. 1DCW-17-0003051)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Pamela Joy Naile’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on August 30, 2019, is

hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, October 16, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000534

16-OCT-2019

08:07 AM
#### Inez V. WILSON, as Administratrix of the Estate of John Richard Wilson, Deceased, Petitioner, v. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 44276.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 280 So.2d 722.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND> 
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM, 
BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS AND 
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10KSB, FOR 
DECEMBER 31, 1995. 
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1 
        
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995 
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995 
<CASH>                                       1,162,726 
<SECURITIES>                                   121,117 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,401 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,284 
<INVENTORY>                                    297,037 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,857,415 
<PP&E>                                         300,747 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 155,504 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,010,772 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          133,592 
<BONDS>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                         5,007 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,872,173 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,010,772 
<SALES>                                      1,535,071 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,617,689 
<CGS>                                          602,586 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  602,586 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               559,143 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                404,137 
<INCOME-TAX>                                   136,428 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            267,709 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   267,709 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05 
         

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             226
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,972
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,863
<PP&E>                                           4,125
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,666
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,497
<BONDS>                                          1,504
<COMMON>                                         1,968
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                          16
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,953
<SALES>                                          2,486
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,177
<CGS>                                              883
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,937
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (386)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021462EN.01003001.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/30

---

Appeal brought on 17 September 2021 by Irish Wind Farmers' Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd, Greenoge Windfarm Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 July 2021 in Case T-680/19, Irish Wind Farmers' Association and Others v Commission

(Case C-578/21 P)

(2021/C 462/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Irish Wind Farmers' Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd, Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (represented by: M. Segura Catalán, abogada, and M. Clayton, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the proceedings of appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the proceedings of appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on two grounds.

By their first ground, the appellants consider that the General Court misinterpreted Article 108 TFEU and Article 4 of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) by holding that the assessment of the concerned aid measure did not require the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure given the absence of serious difficulties as regards its classification as state aid and its compatibility with the internal market.

The first ground is divided into six branches.

First branch: the General Court erred in law as regards the scope of the Commission’s duty to examine facts and points of law in case of unlawful aid.

Second branch: The General Court erred in law in setting a differentiated treatment of the information submitted by Member States and by complainants.

Third branch: The General Court erred in law in the assessment of the duration of the preliminary examination.

Fourth branch: The General Court erred in law in setting the burden of proof to be met by the complainants.

Fifth branch: The General Court erred in law in disregarding the relevance of the system in the United Kingdom for the case at hand.

Sixth branch: The General Court drew an erroneous conclusion from the technical nature of the method for assessing the NAV of fossil fuel electricity generation facilities.

By their second ground, the appellants consider that the General Court distorted the clear sense of evidence put forward by the applicants.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---
No. 00-1013.

#### Yaffe *v.*Adams.

Ct. Civ. App. Okla. Certio-rari denied.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 14 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

vs.

BLAINE CHARLES MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 97-6203

(D.C. No. 96-CR-186)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.**

Defendant-appellant Blaine Charles Moore pleaded guilty to unlawful

possession of a machine gun, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), and received a sentence of

96 months imprisonment, 72 months to be served consecutively to a state

sentence. The federal sentence was based in part on a criminal history score of 13
- 2 -

resulting in a criminal history category of VI. On appeal, Mr. Moore argues that

the district court should have departed downward because the criminal history

category significantly over-represented the seriousness of his criminal history or

the likelihood of recidivism. See generally USSG § 4A1.3, p.s.; United States v.

Maldonado-Campos, 920 F.2d 714, 719, 719 n.2 (10th Cir. 1990). Mr. Moore

relies on the fact that the conduct forming the basis of his state convictions

occurred subsequent to the conduct in the federal case, and that a delayed

prosecution in the federal case resulted in a much higher criminal history score

than would otherwise have occurred. The district court determined that there

were valid reasons for the delayed prosecution and denied Mr. Moore’s request

for a downward departure based on criminal history. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b);

USSG § 5K2.0.

Whether to depart downward is discretionary and ordinarily we are without

jurisdiction to review a district court’s denial of a downward departure. See

United States v. Jones, 80 F.3d 436, 439 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 139

(1996). We have reviewed the record, including the sentencing transcript, and it

is apparent that the district court was aware of the grounds urged, see III R. 7-8,

exercised its discretion, see id. at 18, and declined to depart downward;

accordingly, we are without jurisdiction. See United States v. Barrera-Barron,

996 F.2d 244, 246 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 937 (1993).
- 3 -

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
# C_2021263EN.01002402.xml

| 5.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/24

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 21 May 2021 — Inivos and Inivos v Commission

(Case T-38/21 R)

(Application for interim relief - Public procurement - Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2021/C 263/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Inivos Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Inivos BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Martens and L. Hoet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Araujo Arce and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU to suspend the operation of ‘Framework contracts for disinfection robots for European hospitals (COVID-19)’ FW-00103506 and FW-00103507, concluded by the Commission on 19 November 2020 with two tenderers.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
#### Gertrude FRITSCH, Petitioner, v. Joan ROYCE, d/b/a the Royce Company, not Inc., Respondent.

No. 41625.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 23, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 251 So.2d 564.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### Joseph H. THOMAS and Idele A. Thomas, his wife, et al., Appellants, v. Terence G. CAMPBELL and Leonard R. Newman, a partnership, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Windshield Installation Network, Inc., Respondent, v David Goudreau, Appellant.

[654 NYS2d 442]

Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.), entered October 4, 1995 in Chemung County, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant began his employment with plaintiff, an automobile glass installer, in January 1990. In March 1991, the par*695ties executed an owner / operator agreement, pursuant to the terms of which defendant agreed to perform work for plaintiff as an independent contractor. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the agreement contained a restrictive covenant providing that if said agreement was terminated for any reason, defendant was prohibited from competing with plaintiff for a period of five years within a 30-mile radius of the City of Syracuse, Onondaga County. Defendant subsequently resigned and, in December 1991, began working for a similar business that had been started by his spouse. Plaintiff thereafter commenced this action seeking enforcement of the restrictive covenant. Following joinder of issue and discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court denied the motion, and this appeal by defendant ensued.

It is well settled that "restrictive covenants which tend to prevent an employee from pursuing a similar vocation after termination of employment are disfavored by the law” *(Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co. v A-l-A Corp.,*42 NY2d 496, 499). To that end, "[anticompetitive employment agreements will only be enforced to the extent necessary to protect the employer from unfair competition which stems from the employee’s use or disclosure of trade secrets or confidential customer lists or where the employee’s services are unique” *(Orkin Exterminating Co. v Dayton,*140 AD2d 748, 749; *see, Reed, Roberts Assocs. v Strauman,*40 NY2d 303, 307-308).

Defendant argues on appeal that because he does not possess any extraordinary or unique skills, enforcement of the restrictive covenant at issue would violate public policy. Based upon our review of the record, however, we cannot say that Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff tendered sufficient proof in admissible form to raise a question of fact regarding, *inter alia,*whether defendant acquired, during his employment with plaintiff, confidential information and/or specialized knowledge pertaining to plaintiffs pricing strategy which, in turn, certainly would be relevant to plaintiff s ability to compete with defendant in the marketplace. Accordingly, Supreme Court’s order should be affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
**From:** Megan Uhler[ SMTP:MUHLER@ALL4INC.COM ]

**Sent:** Friday, May 04, 2012 9:46:40 AM **To:** PPSURVEY **Cc:** John Egan; Richard Holland; Robin Ashe; John Bradfield; Bill Schrock; Hanks, Katie P.; Kyle Etheridge; Eric M. Swi sher; John Piotrowski **Subject:** NEI Data Revisions for Packaging Corporation of America Counce, TN Mill - NEI41552 **Au to forwarded by a Rule**  Mr. Holloway, On behalf of the Packaging Corporation of America (PCA), All4 Inc. (ALL4) is providing RTI Internat ional (RTI) with a revised Part II response to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) February 22, 2011 Information Collection Request (ICR) for PCA’s Counce, Tennessee Pulp and Paper Mill (Counce Mill). The Counce Mill submitted its original response to the Part II ICR on June 6, 2011. Since the deadline to submit public comments to Docket ID No. EPA- HQ- OAR- 2007 -0544 ended on February 27, 2012, PCA is submitting revisions to the Part II data set today by means of this correspondence to RTI. The following files are attached and should be considered part of Docket ID No. EPA- HQ- OAR - 2007 - 0544: 1) A cover letter which includes a description of updates performed to the Counce Mill’s Part II data set. 2) The Counce Mill’s revised Part II data set. 3) A copy of the Counce Mill’s facility plot plan. If you have any questions or require additional information regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. John Egan, ALL4 Principal Consultant, at 610 - 933 -5246, extension 14, (jegan@all4inc.com ) or Mr. Robin Ashe, Counce Mill Environmental Manager, at 731 - 689 - 1290 ( rashe@packagingcorp.com ). Sincerely, Megan Uhler Megan Uhler Technical Leader All4 Inc. 2393 Kimberton Roa d  P.O. Box 299 Kimberton, PA 19442

- 0299 p: 610.933.5246 x 32  c: 610.322.2446  f: 610.933.5127 muhler@all4inc.com www.all4inc.com www.enviroreview.com

– ALL4’s customized environmental regulatory updates **Don’t be Blindsided** by Upcoming Air Quality Requirements for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines. ALL4 will get you in shape on June 6!
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 31, 2022

No. 04-22-00507-CR

Marlene LEVEN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR4845A

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on August 31, 2022.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 31st day of August, 2022.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court