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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 30,
1997 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF IAC, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000947431
<NAME>                        IAC, INC.
<CURRENCY>                    US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                                89
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   2,968
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     4,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             17,984
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                        2,500
<COMMON>                                           4,273
<OTHER-SE>                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       4,577
<SALES>                                           30,244
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  30,244
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (2,599)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   32,843
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      32,843
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.00
        


</TABLE>
#### FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF OPTOMETRY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-1073.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 29, 1970.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellant.

Edward P. Swan and Charnelle H. Summers, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ-

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on October 28, 1969 (227 So.2d 736) affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

*521Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed July 29, 1970 (238 So.2d 839) and mandate dated September 21, 1970, affirmed in part and quashed in part this court’s judgment and remanded the cause for further treatment not inconsistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida;

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the opinion and judgment of this court filed in this cause on October 28, 1969, except as affirmed by the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida dated July 29, 1970, aforesaid, is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the judgment of the circuit court appealed in this cause is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                    INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE

The Board of Directors and Stockholders of Rare Medium Group, Inc.:

The audit referred to in our report dated Feburary 14, 2000, included the
related financial statement schedule as of and for the year ended December 31,
1999, included in the annual report on Form 10-K. This financial statement
schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our
audit. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in
relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

                                          /S/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
February 14, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         514,775
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,184,687
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 97,679,092
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      25,000,955
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        24,879,700
<LOANS>                                    100,880,095
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (369,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             234,508,759
<DEPOSITS>                                 125,462,600
<SHORT-TERM>                                12,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,103,504
<LONG-TERM>                                 47,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,814
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,003,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             234,508,759
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,113,487
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,258,506
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             8,371,993
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,254,957
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,081,241
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,290,752
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   39,170
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             274,635
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,421,082
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,260,597
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,016,735
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,016,735
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.93
<LOANS-NON>                                    184,313
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               332,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,170
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              369,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           369,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
#### MARSHAL HOUSING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-224.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 30, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 21, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1287 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1287

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to raise the limitation on 
the election to accelerate the AMT credit in lieu of bonus depreciation 
                               for 2013.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 11, 2013

   Ms. Stabenow (for herself, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Roberts) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to raise the limitation on 
the election to accelerate the AMT credit in lieu of bonus depreciation 
                               for 2013.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON ELECTION TO ACCELERATE 
              THE AMT CREDIT IN LIEU OF BONUS DEPRECIATION.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (J) of section 168(k)(4) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
following new clause:
                            ``(v) Special maximum increase amount for 
                        2013.--In the case of round 3 extension 
                        property placed in service by a corporation--
                                    ``(I) subparagraph (C)(iii) shall 
                                not apply, and
                                    ``(II) the term `maximum increase 
                                amount' means an amount that is 50 
                                percent of the AMT credit increase 
                                amount determined with respect to such 
                                corporation under subparagraph (E).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to property placed in service after December 31, 2012, in taxable years 
ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
#### Edward D. FEURTADO, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-873.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 11, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         July 25, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 19, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 84 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-194, CP2018-272.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-15842 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Lionel CHASE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-340.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1973.

*460Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen V. Rosen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HAVER-FIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

When brought to trial on charges of rape, two assaults with intent to commit rape, aggravated assault and escape, the appellant-defendant offered a plea of nolo contendere which was accepted. Certain plea bargaining between the defendant and the prosecutor had taken place prior to the offer of plea, as a consequence of which, at the time the plea was entered the prosecutor announced to the court that the defendant was to be sentenced to life imprisonment on the rape charge and that sentences on the other charged offenses were to be served concurrently therewith. The sentences were imposed. Thereafter the defendant appealed, and contends that the judgment and sentence should be vacated, his pleas withdrawn, and that he be tried on not guilty pleas, for the reason that “the trial court erred in accepting the plea of nolo contendere without a full and adequate inquiry.”

The contention of the appellant is without merit on this record. His privately retained counsel informed the trial court that all of the defendant’s rights had been explained to him. The plea was offered after certain negotiations with the state attorney. The fact that the state attorney advised the court as to the agreement regarding sentences (with no objection thereto being voiced by defendant’s counsel) was sufficient indication of plea bargaining to such effect. The court inquired of the defendant and ascertained that the plea was being made without threats or promises, and received defendant’s assurance that he was satisfied with his counsel and with what was done.

The state points out, and properly so, that if, as indicated by the appellant’s brief, he now seeks to claim or assert facts inconsistent with or contrary to those shown or indicated by the record, the vehicle therefor is not appeal, but more appropriately a motion under Rule 3.850 CrPR 33 F.S.A.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment and sentences are affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                   EXHIBIT 12

                              THE GILLETTE COMPANY

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 THREE MONTHS    THREE MONTHS
                                                                    ENDED            ENDED
Dollars in millions                                             MARCH 31, 2005  MARCH 31, 2004   2004   2003   2002   2001   2000
--------------------------------------------------------------  --------------  --------------   -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
<S>                                                             <C>             <C>              <C>    <C>    <C>    <C>    <C>
EARNINGS:
         Income from continuing operations before income taxes       $ 625            530        2,384  1,964  1,752  1,342  1,288
         Interest expense                                               17             12           54     54     84    145    223
         Interest portion of rental expense                              9             10           36     41     43     31     25
         Amortization of capitalized interest                            3              2            9     10     10      9      6
                                                                     -----           ----        -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
         Earnings available for fixed charges                        $ 654            554        2,483  2,069  1,889  1,527  1,542
                                                                     =====           ====        =====  =====  =====  =====  =====

FIXED CHARGES:
         Interest expense                                            $  17             12           54     54     84    145    223
         Interest capitalized                                            1              1            4      2      4     11     23
         Interest portion of rental expense                              9             10           36     41     43     31     25
                                                                     -----           ----        -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
         Total fixed charges                                         $  27             23           94     97    131    187    271
                                                                     =====           ====        =====  =====  =====  =====  =====

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                    24.2           24.1         26.4   21.4   14.5    8.2    5.7
                                                                     =====           ====        =====  =====  =====  =====  =====
</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AXS-One Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: November 13, 2008
    /s/ Joseph P. DwyerJoseph P. DwyerExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
and Treasurer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SABINO CASARIN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71851

Agency No. A099-377-069

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Sabino Casarin, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de

novo claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and

FILED

JUL 20 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71851

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Casarin’s motion to reopen,

where Casarin failed to establish that the alleged deficiencies in his prior counsel’s

performance may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. at 793-94

(prejudice results when the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may

have affected the outcome of the proceedings).

Casarin’s contention that the BIA failed to consider and improperly

evaluated all of the evidence submitted with his motion is not supported by the

record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Lillie Mae CRAWFORD et al., Appellants, v. Samuel BARON and Ethel Baron, Appellees.

No. 72-440.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Henry M. BURCH v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BEACH.

No. 38351.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Rehearing Denied June 26, 1969.

Appeals dismissed without opinion.