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



<ARTICLE>                                           7
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-26-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           14,994
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     2,457
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 18,497
<CASH>                                         328
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             3,326
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         1,090
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 29,096
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                15,487

<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            1,839
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          1,229
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                557
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    150
<COMMON>                                       5
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,726
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   29,096
<PREMIUMS>                                     3,910
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            720
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             374
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 96
<BENEFITS>                                     2,775
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    991
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                880
<INCOME-TAX>                                   251
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            629
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   629
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Louis Lee LOAFT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-157.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 13, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
1 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Un ited States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3931

___________ Leon Henry Carter, III, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * CWF Solutions, LLC; Mark Novak, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 4, 2010 Filed: August 24, 2010

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Minnesota inmate Leon Carter appeals fro m the order of the District Court 1 dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The District Court conc luded that Carter failed to state an Eighth Am endment claim, and the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Carter’s state-law claims. After careful de novo review, we affirm for the reasons given by the District Court. S eeBlankenship v. USA Truck, Inc. , 601-2- F.3d 852, 853 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, accepting the allegati ons in the complaint as true and affording the plaintiff all reasonable inferences thatcan be drawn from those allegations); see also Stone v. Harry , 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining that pro se complaints are to be liberally construe d but noting that "they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced").

______________________________
H. Res. 722 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 16, 2014. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution 

(H.J. Res. 124) making continuing appropriations for fiscal 

year 2015, and for other purposes. All points of order against 

consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 

Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 

adopted. The joint resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 

joint resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as 

amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 

debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; 

(2) the further amendment printed in part B of the report 

of the Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative 

McKeon of California or his designee, which shall be in order 
2 

•HRES 722 EH 

without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered 

as read, shall be separately debatable for six hours equally divided and controlled by Representative McKeon of California 

and Representative Smith of Washington or their respective 

designees, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 

of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. Section 4(c) of House Resolution 567 is amended by adding the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(7) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) through 

(f)(12) of clause 4 of rule XI shall be considered to be 

written rules adopted by the Select Committee as though 

pursuant to such clause.’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Submitted on record, and briefs October 17,

affirmed November 7, 1969

#### STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, *v.*GUILLERMO GALAN, *Appellant.*

460 P. 2d 368

Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem, filed the brief for appellant. With him on the brief was J. Marvin Kuhn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem.

H. Clifford Looney, District Attorney, Vale, filed the brief for respondent.

*197BRANCHFIELD, J.

The defendant was convicted of burglary, after stealing a television'set -from a dwelling house, and he appeals. He contends that the only testimony at the trial which sitpported his conviction was the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices which, under the provisions-of ORS 136.550, is insufficient to support a conviction.

The defendant and three other men, including one Herrera, went in a car to a dwelling house in Nyssa in the middle of the day on December 9, 1968, while the occupants were away at work. According to Herrera’s testimony, the defendant and one of the other men went into the house and returned with the television set which they put into the trunk of the car. They then drove to Ontario and ultimately delivered the set to the home of Joe Ponce. There is no testimony in the record concerning other participation by Herrera in the burglary or that he knew the set was being stolen rather than taken with permission.

Ponce testified that, although he had seen the men in question before, including the defendant, and knew who they were, the first time he knew anything about a television set was when the carload of men came to his place of work with the television set in the car. Defendant then sold it to Ponce for $150, agreeing to deliver it to his home. There was no testimony to the contrary.

The court gave the jury the definition of an accomplice and instructed the jury that the testimony of an accomplice must be viewed with distrust and that corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice is required for conviction.

The record contains no evidence tying Ponce in *198any way to the burglary, and is far from conclusive as to Herrera.

> “* * * [W]here there is any conflict in the testimony as to whether a witness is or is not an accomplice, the issue must be submitted to the jury under proper instructions of the court **** *." *State v.*Carr, 28 Or 389, 395-96, 42 P 215 (1895). See also *State v.*German, 162 Or 166, 90 P2d 185 (1939), 163 Or 642, 98 P2d 6 (1939).

Affirmed.
#### NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEMS, INC., a Nevada corporation, et al., Appellants, v. Linda GAZIE and Richard Gazie, her husband, Appellees.

No. 73-828.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 12, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
259 La. 892

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. James H. DUNN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 51818.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: James H. Dunn applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application not considered. This application raises the same questions raised in his previous application. 255 La. 819, 233 So.2d 253, denied by this Court.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TRONNEAL MANGUM,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2980

[December 12, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Kirk Volker, Judge; L.T. 

Case No. 50-1997-CF-001373-A.

Tronneal Mangum, Indiantown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, CJ., GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Summary of Analytical Results

(662 - February 2011)

 Sample ID 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB Date 2/7/11 2/14/11 2/21/11 2/28/11 Top (ft) 0000 Total (T)/ Bottom (ft) 0000

Analyte units Diss. (D) Duplicate # 1111

PFOA ug/L T 8.10 9.83 7.49 5.04

Samples were analyzed by Critical Path Services. Reported results  collected on 2/7/11 represents the average of duplicate results.

PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acidug/L = micrograms per Liter

 represent a single analysis, except for the sample collected on 2/7/11. Aceptable precision was obtained and the reported result for the sample

< and ND = Non detect at stated reporting limit Page 1 of 1

cwk
#### Carol Joan HOOD, Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-447.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 18, 1969

Hawkesworth & Kay, and James Schmick, Miami, for appellant.

Raymond V. Perosino, Hialeah, Richard E. Hardwick, Coral Gables, Sam Daniels, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of Sires v. State Fire & Casualty Company, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So.2d 875*

*

 Case No. 69-150, Third District Court of Appeal, opinion filed 30 September 1969.
#### Life & Casualty Ins. Co. *v.*Parker.

(Division B.

May 20, 1935.)

[161 So. 465.

No. 31745.]

*181L. O. G-win, of Natchez, for appellant.

*182Whittington & Brown, of Natchez, for appellee.

Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The policy of insurance sued upon contains the provision that, “if the age of the assured be misstated, the amount payable under this policy shall be such as the premium would have purchased at the correct insur*183able age. ’ ’ The age stated in the policy is twenty-six. According to the record, the assured had only two near relatives, his mother and his brother — the brother being forty-five years old — with whom the assured lived. Both the mother and the brother testified that at the date of the policy the assured was thirty-three years old. The only contradiction of this was the testimony of two, witnesses who gave their estimate of his age from their observation of his appearance, and who testified that the assured had told them he was about twenty-six years old at the time of the issuance of the policy.

The last-mentioned statements by the assured, although unsworn, 22 C. J., p. 239, note 94, were sufficient to take the case to the jury; but under the opinion in the recent ease, Messina v. New York Life Ins. Co. (Miss.), 161 So. 460, the direct testimony of the mother and the much older brother, delivered as witnesses under oath, is of so much higher grade in quality of proof that we must hold that upon the issue of age the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.

We are inclined to- the opinion also that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence upon the issue of the diseased condition of the assured at the time of the delivery of the policy, but, since the judgment must be reversed upon the other issue, we do not pursue the second inquiry.

Reversed and remanded.
---

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

The undersigned, Jinglin Shi, the Chief Executive Officer of CHINA NUTRIFRUIT GROUP LIMITED (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 29th day of June, 2010.

/s/ Jinglin Shi   
Jinglin Shi 
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Nutrifruit Group Limited and will be retained by China Nutrifruit Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
259 La. 887

#### Harry EASON v. Robert E. McGILL et al.

No. 51781.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: Robert E. McGill applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 251 So.2d 519.

Writ denied. There is no error of law under the facts found by the Court of Appeal.
6H 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0676

RITA M. BLADES, Temporary Guardian 

and Conservator for H.A.G.,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

GARRY DOUGLAS SEAMAN,

 Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Peter Francis Carroll, whose name appears next on the 

list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which 

is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the 

mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this April 18, 2023.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: David Robert Paoli, davidpaoli@paoli-law.com

David Brian Cotner, dcotner@cotnerlaw.com

Reid J. Perkins, rperkins@wordenthane.com

Brian Geer, bgeer@cotnerlaw.com

Emily Jung Bruner, ebruner@wordenthane.com

Peter Francis Carroll, petercarroll@flatheadlaw.com

04/18/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0676
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2014-0004

 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM143AD

A320-57-1149 --- 4/1/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 3(b)(v)

                                    EXHIBIT A

                  Amendment to Section 5.01 of Article V of the
                 Amended and Restated Code of Bylaws, as amended
                              of The Sands Regent,
                              a Nevada corporation

     Effective as of August 20, 2002, Section 5.01 of Article V of the Amended
and Restated Code of Bylaws, as amended of this Corporation shall be amended and
restated to read in its entirety:

     Section 5.01. Officers. The officers of the Corporation shall consist of a
                   --------
Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, Chief Operating Officer,
Treasurer, one or more Executive Vice Presidents, one or more Senior Vice
Presidents, and other Vice Presidents as the case might be, Secretary, and other
such officers and assistant officers as may be deemed necessary by the Board of
Directors of the Corporation, provided, however, that the President of the
Corporation shall be a member of the Board of Directors. Each officer so elected
shall hold office until his successor is elected and qualified, but shall be
subject to removal at any time by the vote or written consent of a majority of
the Directors, provided, however, that a vote or written consent of two-thirds
(2/3rds) of the Directors shall be required to remove from office the President,
Chief Operating Officer, Treasurer or any Executive Vice President of the
Corporation.

                                      A-1
#### William Robert YEAGER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42259.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
#### Henry R. Turner et al., Appellants, v Mark A. Williams et al., Respondents.

[655 NYS2d 380]

In an action, *inter alia,*for a permanent injunction, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated January 18, 1996, which denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and vacated a temporary restraining order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants have failed to demonstrate the requisite likelihood of success on the merits warranting the injunctive relief sought *(see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso,*75 NY2d 860; *Jurlique, Inc. v Austral Biolab Pty.,*187 AD2d 637). Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000755113
<NAME>                        SurgiCare, Inc
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                          22
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   5607
<ALLOWANCES>                    2274
<INVENTORY>                     620
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                4122
<PP&E>                          3214
<DEPRECIATION>                  713
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  14599
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           4334
<BONDS>                         4595
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     1
<COMMON>                        70
<OTHER-SE>                      5397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    14599
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                6040
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   2316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1671
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 1723
<INCOME-TAX>                    633
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             1090
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    1090
<EPS-BASIC>                     .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .04



</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Christopher M. LEWIS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53597.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1973.

In re: Christopher M. Lewis applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. No error.

TATE, J.,

concurs on the basis of the trial court’s finding based on the evi-dentiary hearing.
No. 00-1127.

#### Stanley *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S MARCH 31, 1997 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,304
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,315)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,511
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,927
<PP&E>                                         155,815
<DEPRECIATION>                                (54,573)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 308,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,525
<BONDS>                                        248,877
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,503)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   308,903
<SALES>                                         15,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,723
<CGS>                                           18,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,060
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,055)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,055)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,055)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)
        

</TABLE>