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



<ARTICLE>                                           7
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-28-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           14,768
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     2,790
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 18,269
<CASH>                                         340
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             3,030
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 28,241
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                14,919

<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            1,599
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          1,246
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                556
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    150
<COMMON>                                       5
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   28,241
<PREMIUMS>                                     1,207
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            236
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             124
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 28
<BENEFITS>                                     848
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    308
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                291
<INCOME-TAX>                                   86
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            205
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   205
<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>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2486

JOHN J. JOSWICK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY APPLIED PHYSICS

LABORATORY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA98-3041-PJM)

Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John J. Joswick, Appellant Pro Se. Valerie Floyd Portner, Patrick

A. Birck, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Laurel, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The proceedings in this action were conducted by a magistrate judge pursuant to the consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c) (1994).

2

PER CURIAM:

John L. Joswick appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting

summary judgment to his former employer in his employment discrimination action filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act 42

U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

magistrate judge. See Joswick v. Johns Hopkins Univ. Applied

Physics Lab., No. CA-98-3041-PJM (D. Md. Sept. 30, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 6, 2020

No. 04-19-00743-CV

John David HODGES,

Appellant

v.

Isabel HODGES,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-18089

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the trial court’s judgment granting a final 

divorce in this cause. The clerk’s record and reporter’s record have been filed. The reporter’s 

record contains a trial transcript reflecting the trial court’s ruling granting the divorce and the 

clerk’s record contains judge’s notes denoting the terms of the divorce decree. However, the 

clerk’s record does not contain a written final judgment signed by the trial court. The deputy 

clerk of this court inquired with the trial court clerk and was informed that no final judgment has 

been signed by the trial court judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this appeal is ABATED for a period of thirty (30) 

days to permit the trial court to enter a written judgment granting a final divorce decree so that 

an appeal from the judgment may proceed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.2. Appellant’s prematurely 

filed notice of appeal is effective and will be deemed filed “on the day of but after” the date the 

trial court’s signed final judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.1(a).

The trial court clerk is ORDERED to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the 

trial court’s written judgment in this court within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

If a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s written judgment is not filed 

within the prescribed time period, this appeal will be dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. All other 

appellate deadlines in this appeal are suspended pending further order of the court.
_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of April, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 118 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 118

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of 
             public funds for political party conventions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 23 (legislative day, January 3), 2013

   Mr. Coburn (for himself and Mr. Udall of Colorado) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                        Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of 
             public funds for political party conventions.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING USE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR 
              PARTY CONVENTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 95 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking section 9008.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of chapter 95 of 
such Code is amended by striking the item relating to section 9008.

SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Availability of Payments to Candidates.--The third sentence of 
section 9006(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
striking ``, section 9008(b)(3),''.
    (b) Reports by Federal Election Commission.--Section 9009(a) of 
such Code is amended--
            (1) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
            (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of paragraph (3) 
        and inserting a period; and
            (3) by striking paragraphs (4), (5), and (6).
    (c) Penalties.--Section 9012 of such Code is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking the second sentence; 
        and
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (2) and 
        redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
    (d) Availability of Payments From Presidential Primary Matching 
Payment Account.--The second sentence of section 9037(a) of such Code 
is amended by striking ``and for payments under section 9008(b)(3)''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
elections occurring after December 31, 2012.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021368EN.01001102.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 7 July 2021 — VP Capital NV v Belgische Staat; other parties: PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs NV, Ernst & Young Tax Consultants BV, Ernst & Young Bedrijfsrevisoren BV

(Case C-414/21)

(2021/C 368/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VP Capital NV

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Other parties: PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs NV, Ernst & Young Tax Consultants BV, Ernst & Young Bedrijfsrevisoren BV

Question referred

Does freedom of establishment, as guaranteed by Article 49 TFEU, preclude national legislation, such as that at issue here, where it results in a Luxembourg company which records write-downs on shares in Luxembourg and which, although deducting those write-downs in principle from its taxable income, cannot actually deduct them from its taxable income because of the existence of a tax loss position, being taxed on the write-back of those write-downs in Belgium following the transfer of its registered office to Belgium, unless the increases in value masked by that write-back are allocated to a liability account not available for distribution, whereas a Belgian company which has recorded write-downs on shares in Belgium is not taxed on the write-back of those write-downs, provided that the write-downs had not been previously deducted from its Belgian taxable income, without needing to allocate the increases in value masked by that write-back to a liability account not available for distribution?

---
#### William A. SANDS, Appellant, v. James E. COLLIER, Sr., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-171.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 26, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST AMERICAN CLOCK CO. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              59
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,459
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,096
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,682
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           908
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,096
<SALES>                                          5,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,500
<CGS>                                            4,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,226
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,273)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,273)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,273)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1243

To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on chloramino base.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 15 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. CHAFEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on

chloramino base.

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

3 SECTION 1. CHLORAMINO BASE.

4 Heading 9902.29.42 of subchapter II of chapter 99

5 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

6 is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/

7 31/94’’.

8 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by this Act

10 applies with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from
2

•S 1243 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

3 (b) RELIQUIDATION.—Notwithstanding section 514

4 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law,

5 upon proper request filed with the appropriate customs of6 ficer on or before the 90th day after the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, any entry of an article described in sub8 heading 9902.29.42 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

9 the United States that was made—

10 (1) after December 31, 1992, and

11 (2) before the date which is 15 days after the

12 date of the enactment of this Act,

13 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

14 occurred on or after the date that is 15 days after the

15 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### Robert Allen WARF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-456.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 11, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and William C. Owen, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
IV

House Calendar No. 227

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 551

[Report No. 103–756]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4779) to amend the Solid

Waste Disposal Act to authorize local governments and Governors to

restrict receipt of out-of-State municipal solid waste, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1994

Mr. BONIOR, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4779) to amend

the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize local governments and Governors to restrict receipt of out-of-State

municipal solid waste, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 4779) to amend the Solid Waste
2

HRES 551 RH

1 Disposal Act to authorize local governments and Gov2 ernors to restrict receipt of out-of-State municipal solid

3 waste, and for other purposes. The first reading of the

4 bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be con5 fined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally di6 vided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minor7 ity member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

8 After general debate the bill shall be considered for

9 amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not

10 to exceed four hours (excluding time consumed by re11 corded votes and proceedings incidental thereto). It shall

12 be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose

13 of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment

14 in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Commit15 tee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill. Each

16 section of the committee amendment in the nature of a

17 substitute shall be considered as read. Any amendment of18 fered by the chairman of the Committee on Energy and

19 Commerce or his designee may amend portions of the bill

20 not yet read for amendment. At the conclusion of consider21 ation of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise

22 and report the bill to the House with such amendments

23 as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a

24 separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted

25 in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the commit-
3

HRES 551 RH

1 tee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous

2 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

3 amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

4 motion except one motion to recommit with or without in5 structions.
House Calendar No. 227

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 551

[Report No. 103–756]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4779)

waste, and for other purposes.strict receipt of out-of-State municipal solidthorize local governments and Governors to reto amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to auSEPTEMBER 27, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### Billy Joe PEARSON v. Mrs. Ann KORZEKWA, Executrix of the Estate of Elsie Leona Pearson and Todd’s Big Star, Inc.

No. 47092.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 28, 1973.

Parker, Randle & Winston, P. A., Bram-lett & Mounce, Tupelo, for appellant.

Mitchell, Rogers & Eskridge, Tupelo, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Chief Justice:

This case involves the right of appellant to recover for the wrongful death of an infant born to appellant’s former wife nine months and nine days after appellant separated from the infant’s mother and approximately seven months after their divorce. The chancellor found that appellant made statements during the infant’s lifetime that he was not the father, and that appellant furnished the information shown on the infant’s death certificate that its father was unknown.

We are of the opinion that because of the unusual posture of the issue concerning the infant’s parentage, the fact that the birth certificate was not offered in evidence, and the appellant was held not to be a competent witness under the dead man’s statute [Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 16901 (1956)], the decree of the trial court ought to be vacated and the cause remanded to the trial docket for further proof and development of the case. Mississippi Chancery Practice, Griffith, section 595 (1950), provides in part as follows:

> [I]t has long been the settled rule in our courts of equity that where on a final hearing or even after submission it is clearly perceived' that some material point is either left unproved or the explanation of it is insufficient the chancellor has a discretion in the interest of justice and merits to remand it to the docket for further proof. If it appear that by inadvertence or a mistaken idea of the law or the like, a material fact known to exist has not been proved the court should remand to the docket to allow the proof, unless clearly a countervailing injustice would be done thereby. .

> Decree vacated and remanded.

PATTERSON, INZER, ROBERTSON and WALKER, JJ., concur.

1

. The appellant did not raise the question of the application of section 1690 in this Court, therefore, we do not have before us the correctness of this ruling.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Vitran Corporation
Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Vitran Corporation Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Vitran Corporation Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  | 
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------- |  | 
|Date: October 26, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ RICHARD E. GAETZ       |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Richard E. Gaetz           |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | President and              |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer    |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |    
|                       |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ SEAN P. WASHCHUK       |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Sean P. Washchuk           |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Vice President Finance and |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer    |  |
251 La. 744

#### Succession of Stella Blanchard GLAZE also known as Stella B. Glaze.

No. 49036.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: Gladys Rabensteiner applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 203 So.2d 842.

Writ refused. There is no error of law in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

YARRUT, J., recused.
#### Willard BROXSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 23, 1971.

Willard Broxson, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See Broxson v. State, 161 So.2d 901 (Fla.App.1964) and Broxson v. Wainwright, 372 F.2d *944*(U.S.C.C.A., 5th Cir., 1967).

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB ("Form 10-QSB") of
Smart-tek Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended December 31,2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Denis Gallant, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)   The Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)   The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Denis Gallant

------------------------------

Denis Gallant

Chief Financial Officer

February 16, 2006