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

<ARTICLE>              9
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      11,812
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 38,368
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      12,146
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        12,212
<LOANS>                                    141,646
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             208,402
<DEPOSITS>                                 179,602
<SHORT-TERM>                                 8,569
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,489
<LONG-TERM>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     1,805
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,937
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             208,402
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,115
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,510
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                30
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,655
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,825
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,019
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,636
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,684
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,684
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                3.75
<LOANS-NON>                                    894
<LOANS-PAST>                                     0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,697
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,925
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  239
<RECOVERIES>                                    22
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,798
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,798
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>  122


                               Exhibit 23 (a)

Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
1100 Campanile Building
1155 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA   30309-3630



                    Consent of Independent Accountants
                    ---------------------------------- 


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of First Liberty Financial Corp. and Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-
24733 and 333-00385) of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph
concerning a change in the method of accounting for impaired loans and 
mortgage servicing rights in 1996, dated November 5, 1996, except as to the 
information presented in the first paragraph of Note 3, for which the date is
November 15, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of
First Liberty Financial Corp. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1996 and
1995, and for the years ended September 30, 1996, 1995 and 1994, which report
is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                      /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Atlanta, Georgia
December 17, 1996






















                                   122
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



                            State of Incorporation
                            ----------------------

Northeast Utilities (a Massachusetts business trust)           MA
   The Connecticut Light and Power Company                     CT
      CL&P Funding LLC                                         DE
      CL&P Receivables Corporation                             CT
   Holyoke Water Power Company                                 MA
      Holyoke Power and Electric Company                       MA
   North Atlantic Energy Corporation                           NH
   North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation                   NH
   Northeast Nuclear Energy Company                            CT
   Northeast Utilities Service Company                         CT
   NU Enterprises, Inc.                                        CT
      Select Energy Services, Inc. (formerly HEC Inc.)         MA
         Select Energy Contracting, Inc.                       MA
      Mode 1 Communications, Inc.                              CT
      Northeast Generation Company                             CT
      Northeast Generation Services Company                    CT
         E. S. Boulos Company                                  CT
      Select Energy, Inc.                                      CT
         Select Energy New York, Inc.                          DE
   Public Service Company of New Hampshire                     NH
      PSNH Funding LLC                                         DE
      PSNH Funding LLC 2                                       DE
   The Quinnehtuk Company                                      MA
   The Rocky River Realty Company                              CT
   Western Massachusetts Electric Company                      MA
   WMECO Funding LLC                                           DE
   Yankee Energy System, Inc.                                  CT
      Yankee Gas Services Company                              CT
#### Alexis Benigno RICARDO and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Ralph L. ROBERTS et al., Respondents.

No. 73-1482.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 26, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
```

                                                                     Exhibit 4.1

                       AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT

     AMENDMENT NO. 2, dated May 6, 2004, (this "Amendment") to that certain
Rights Agreement, dated September 29, 1995, as amended (the "Rights Agreement"),
between TRANSPRO, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and AMERICAN
STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY ("Rights Agent").

     WHEREAS, a Distribution Date pursuant to the Rights Agreement has not
occurred as of the date of this Amendment and the Rights are currently
redeemable; and

     WHEREAS, the Company wishes to cure an ambiguity in the drafting of the
Rights Agreement and change the Final Expiration Date thereof;

     NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby,
agree to amend the Rights Agreement as follows:

1. The final sentence of Section 27 of the Rights Agreement is hereby deleted in
its entirety and replaced with the following:

     "Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, no supplement
or amendment shall be made at such time as the Rights are not then redeemable
which (i) decreases the stated Redemption Price, (ii) decreases the period of
time remaining until the Final Expiration Date or (iii) modifies a time period
relating to when the Rights may be redeemed."

2. Section 1(k) of the Rights Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:

     "(k) "Final Expiration Date" shall mean September 30, 2004."

3. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts each of which shall be deemed
to be an original and all of which shall together constitute one and the same
instrument.

4. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Rights Agreement.

                            (signature page follows)

                                       19

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the day and year first written above.

TRANSPRO, INC.                           AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY

By:    /s/ Richard A. Wisot              By:    /s/ Joseph F. Wolf
Name:  Richard A. Wisot                  Name:  Joseph F. Wolf
Title: Vice President                    Title: Vice President

                                       20
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS I, Larry L. Enterline, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Venturi Partners,
Inc. (the registrant); 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 officers 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)) for the registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and 5. The registrants other certifying officers 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 registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: May 11, 2004
    
    /s/ Larry L. EnterlineLarry L. EnterlineChairman and Chief Executive Officer
 25
#### MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 7409.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

July 1, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 12, 1968.

Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Elven E. Ponder, Wm. J. Doran, Jr., Baton Rouge, for appellee.

Before LOTTINGER, SARTAIN, and ELLIS, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

This is a contest between a general and special workmen’s compensation insurer, to see who should ultimately pay the claim of an injured employee. This case was previously before us on an exception, at which time we decided the main point and remanded it for trial on the merits. See Maryland Casualty Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 194 So.2d 204 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1967). In that decision, we held that the two insurers should share the loss equally.

On the trial, the district judge, pursuant to the instructions contained in the above opinion, rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for $4,-062.18, one half of the amounts expended by plaintiff in weekly compensation payments, medical expenses and a lump sum compromise settlement. From that judgment,'defendant appealed.

The first specification of error relates to the point already decided by us in our prior opinion, to which reference is made for a full discussion of the matter.

Defendant also claims that plaintiff can not demand indemnification for that part of the amount which was paid out in the compromise settlement, citing the case of Winford v. Bulloch, 210 La. 301, 26 So.2d 822 (1946). That case held that an employer who compromised a judgment against him rather than appeal it could not demand indemnification from his negligent employee who was not consulted about the settlement.

In this case, however, the compromise was Court approved, and was reflected in a judgment, signed by a judge, who, under *73the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is required to discuss the settlement with the parties thereto, and not to approve it unless he finds it to be fair and equitable. R.S. 23:1271 et seq. In addition, we find that the record amply supports the reasonableness of the settlement, and that plaintiff has satisfied the burden of proof imposed on him by United States Casualty Co. v. Butler, 151 So.2d 136 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1963).

The judgment appealed from is affirmed at defendant’s cost.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37830-37831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16525]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

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: August 2, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
July 27, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 85 
to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at

[[Page 37831]]

www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-196, CP2018-274.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-16525 Filed 8-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Table 11.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit, for the United States and Regions:
                  Third Quarter 2004 and 2005

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                                   Third Quarter 2004

Type of housing unit
                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      9.7       8.1       9.0      12.1       7.7
      For rent...........................      3.1       2.5       3.3       3.5       2.7
      For sale only......................      1.1       0.7       1.4       1.2       0.8
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.9       0.9       0.8       0.9       0.8
      Held off market....................      4.6       4.0       3.4       6.4       3.4
        For occasional use...............      1.6       1.2       0.6       2.4       1.6
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.8       0.8       0.8       1.0       0.6
        For other reasons................      2.2       1.9       2.0       3.0       1.3

    Seasonal vacant......................      3.0       3.6       3.3       2.8       2.5

    Occupied.............................     87.3      88.3      87.8      85.2      89.8



                                                   Third Quarter 2005


                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      9.6       7.1       9.6      11.6       8.0
      For rent...........................      3.0       2.0       3.7       3.4       2.5
      For sale only......................      1.2       0.8       1.5       1.4       0.9
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      1.0       0.9       1.0       1.0       1.0
      Held off market....................      4.4       3.4       3.4       5.9       3.6
        For occasional use...............      1.4       0.9       0.7       2.1       1.6
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.8       0.7       0.7       1.0       0.7
        For other reasons................      2.1       1.8       2.0       2.7       1.3

    Seasonal vacant......................      3.1       3.7       2.7       3.2       2.8

    Occupied.............................     87.4      89.1      87.7      85.2      89.2
EXHIBIT 31.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I, Wayne F. Irmiter, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Salton Sea Funding Corporation;
 
 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 officers 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)) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.  The registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: August 3, 2004
 
 /s/ Wayne F. Irmiter
 Wayne F. Irmiter
 Vice President and Controller
 (chief accounting officer)
#### Norita F. CSONKA and Lucille M. Sodergren, Appellants, v. Clouis George NICHOLSON, etc., et al., Appellees. Norita F. CSONKA, Appellant, v. Clouis George NICHOLSON, etc., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 73-458, 73-459.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 18, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Ralph M. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-954.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 14, 1973.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Elliott C. Metcalfe, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant Ralph M. Wilson was charged and convicted by jury of violation of Florida Statute § 800.04, F.S.A. in that he fondled a female child under the age of 14 years in a lewd, lascivious and indecent manner without intention to commit rape.

He now urges that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict and that his motion for acquittal should have been granted. We disagree. The record reveals that the child was 9 years old and testified very clearly and explicitly as to the acts performed by the appellant. It is true there were no corroborating witnesses and the appellant testified in his own behalf, denying all the acts. The jury, however, believed the story as told by the child and since it rather convincingly supports the verdict of the jury, it will not be disturbed by an appellate court.

We are, however, concerned with the sentencing. Florida Statute § 801.041, *F.*S.A., provides that one convicted under Florida Statute § 800.04, F.S.A., is punishable pursuant to Chapter 801 of the Florida Statutes and, although this was intended in this case, the provisions of Chapter 801 have not been sufficiently complied with. Florida Statute § 801.051, F.S.A., provides as follows:

> “When a person has been convicted of an offense within the meaning of this chapter the trial judge shall then appoint not less than two (2) nor more than three (3) qualified psychiatrists who are licensed physicians in the state and who have directed their professional practice primarily to the diagnosis and treatment of mental and nervous disorders for a period of not less than five (5) years, to make a personal examination of the person so convicted. The court *shall not*proceed under the provisions of this chapter until each psychiatrist so appointed shall have filed a separate written report of the result of his examination.”

*668We believe the language contained in the statute is mandatory. It is clear and unequivocal as to what a trial judge shall do prior to proceeding with sentencing.

It is entirely possible that appellant will not be found to be mentally ill and if that be the case this court is without power to change the sentence.

The legislature obviously recognized when it revised Section 801 that one found guilty of molesting children is in all likelihood mentally ill and should be afforded proper medical attention. The statute looks toward rehabilitation as well as punishment. It is for this reason as well as the clear language of the statute that *shall not*is mandatory and Chapter 801 must be followed and the offender should not be sentenced until Chapter 801 has been complied with.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

McNULTY and BOARDMAN JJ. concur.