alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 2.  Rental and Homeowner Vacancy Rates, by Area:  First Quarter 2003 and 2002







                                    Rental vacancy rates





                           First        First      Standard     Standard

Area                      quarter      quarter     error on     error on

                           2003         2002r      2003 rate   difference





United States..........         9.4          9.1          0.2          0.2



  Inside MAs...........         9.3          9.0          0.2          0.3

    In central cities..         9.4          9.5          0.3          0.4

    Not in central cities

    (suburbs)..........         9.2          8.3          0.3          0.4

  Outside MAs..........        10.1          9.8          0.5          0.7



 Northeast.............         6.0          5.8          0.3          0.5

 Midwest...............        10.2         10.3          0.4          0.6

 South.................        12.4         11.8          0.3          0.5

 West..................         7.3          7.0          0.3          0.4







                                    Homeowner vacancy rates





                           First        First      Standard     Standard

Area                      quarter      quarter     error on     error on

                           2003         2002r      2003 rate   difference



United States..........         1.7          1.7          (z)          0.1



  Inside MAs...........         1.6          1.6          0.1          0.1

    In central cities..         1.8          2.0          0.1          0.2

    Not in central cities

    (suburbs)..........         1.5          1.4          0.1          0.1

  Outside MAs..........         1.9          1.9          0.1          0.2



 Northeast.............         1.1          1.2          0.1          0.2

 Midwest...............         1.7          1.7          0.1          0.1

 South.................         2.0          1.9          0.1          0.1

 West..................         1.6          1.5          0.1          0.1

       rRevised

     (z) Less than 0.05.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
                
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      0
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          11504802
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       41870
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                11546672
<CASH>                                         1910596
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              142677
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          514561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                15104212
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                1827912
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              49837
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 4038553
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           279755
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        466239
<OTHER-SE>                                     8126558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  15104212
<PREMIUMS>                                     3073819
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             880368
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              308490
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                     2015220
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      48191
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            650473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (355927)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (355927)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (355927)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                   35470
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             1475000
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 32658
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 431500
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                           1688
        


</TABLE>
#### COURTNEY v. AMERICAN OIL CO.

No. 38638.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 220 So.2d 675.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2502

RICKY W. LEECH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES TURNER, Corporal; CHARLES SUMMERS,

Corporal,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA98-161-PJM)

Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Irving Dross, David Michael Kopstein, DROSS, LEVENSTEIN, PERILMAN

& KOPSTEIN, Seabrook, Maryland, for Appellant. John Joseph Curran,

Jr., Attorney General, Michael Allan Fry, Assistant Solicitor,

Frank William Mann, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Leech appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants on Leech’s complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) and state tort law.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion. The

district court properly found that there was no genuine issue of

material fact and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter

of law. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Leech v. Turner, No. CA-98-161-PJM (D. Md. Sept. 28, 1998).

We decline to review claims Leech raises for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

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
#### Francisco REBON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 7476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 18, 1967.

Francisco Rebon, Jr., in pro. per., and Lee R. Horton, Jr., Public Defender, and Robert L. Trohn, Asst. Public Defender, Lakeland, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

SHANNON, Judge.

Francisco Rebon, Jr., pleaded guilty to an escape charge, was adjudged guilty thereof, and was sentenced to a one-year prison term to begin at the expiration of the sentence he was then serving. He subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, urging that Fla.Stat., Sec. 944.40, F.S.A., under which he was convicted and sentenced, is unconstitutional. His ground for such contention, now urged on appeal from the order denying his motion, is that such statute denies him equal protection of the law by providing for harsher punishment for an escaped felon than for an escaped misdemeanant.

We do not regard the distinction made by the attacked statute unreasonable and arbitrary. Accordingly, we affirm without needing to consider whether the defect alleged is fundamental such as would not be deemed waived by appellant’s plea of guilty. Thomas v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So.2d 834, 835; Hines v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 195 So.2d 605, 606; Childs v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 190 So.2d 605, 606.

Affirmed.

LILES, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
Exhibit 10.1


 


VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


This VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT (Agreement), dated
September 26, 2022, is made by between Yin-Chieh Cheng of Nocera (“Purchaser”), Inc. and Han-Chieh Shih of iTake Inc. (“Seller”)


 


In consideration of the mutual
promises and covenants in this Agreement, the Parties agree to the Purchase of controlling interest of a Variable Interest Entity and
the Terms and Conditions as set forth below.


 


Purchase


 


The Purchaser shall purchase Seller’s 51% controlling interest
of iTake Inc. with address at 11F., NO. 37, SEC. 1, KAIFENG ST., ZHONGZHENG DIST., TAIPEI CITY 10044,
TAIWAN (R.O.C.) 


 


Terms And Conditions


 


		1.	Purchase Price



 


The purchase price of 51% controlling interest shall be $200,000 US
Dollars plus 100,000 Class A warrants.


 


		2.	Payment



 


Upon signing the contract, Purchaser shall pay a payment of US$200,000
to Seller and issue 100,000 Class A warrants within 60 days of signing.


 


		3.	Effective Date



 


The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be 15th date
after payment is made.


 


		4.	Delivery 



 


At the effective date, the Seller shall deliver all Variable Interest
Agreements and the Variable Interest Agreement legal opinion representing the controlling interest purchased by the Purchaser.


 


		5.	Warranty of the Seller 



 


The Seller warrants that the consummation of this Agreement does not
violate any terms or provision of the bylaws of the company or any contract or any commitment. Moreover, the Seller warrants that there
are no actions, proceedings or investigation pending against the Seller.


 


 


 






    	 	1	 



     


    

 


		6.	Warranty of the Purchaser 



 


The Purchaser understands the risks of investments related to the company
and claims they are able to bear the risks. The Purchaser has enough knowledge and experience in the financial and business matters, making
the Purchaser capable of evaluating the merits and risks associated with this Agreement.


 


		7.	Governing Law 



 


This agreement shall be governed by the civil
law and the Company law of Taiwan.


 





	Purchaser	Seller
	 	 
	Nocera, Inc	 
	 	 
	/s/ Yin-Chieh Cheng	/s/ Shih,Han-Chieh
	 	 
	Name: Yin-Chieh Cheng	Name:
Shih, Han-Chieh
	 	 
	Title: Chief Executive
Officer	 
	 	 
	Address: 3F., NO. 185, SEC. 1, DATONG RD.,	Address: 11F.,
NO. 37, SEC. 
	 	 
	XIZHI DIST., NEW TAIPEI CITY 221,	1,
KAIFENG ST., 
	 	 
	TAIWAN (R.O.C.)	ZHONGZHENG
DIST., 
	 	 
	 	TAIPEI CITY 10044,
	 	 
	 	TAIWAN (R.O.C.)




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 






    	 	2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PERSONAL GROUP OF AMERICA INC., FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED JULY 2, 2000 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-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-3-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                JUL-2-2000
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  137,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (3,418)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,923
<PP&E>                                          44,073
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (16,665)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 752,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,932
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           331
<OTHER-SE>                                     370,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   752,726
<SALES>                                        223,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               223,006
<CGS>                                          158,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  204,636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,173
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,118
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,203
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,915
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,915
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16


</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Congoleum Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Howard N. Feist
III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











March
30, 2009





/s/ Howard N. Feist III


Howard
N. Feist III


Chief
Financial Officer








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Congoleum Corporation and will be retained by Congoleum Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                9
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         11,062
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    37,178
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         12,575
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           12,582
<LOANS>                                       138,154
<ALLOWANCE>                                     1,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                203,530
<DEPOSITS>                                    178,002
<SHORT-TERM>                                    5,631
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             1,235
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,805
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                203,530
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 2,994
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 753
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   10
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                3,757
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              1,901
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,978
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           1,779
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 1,059
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   863
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        863
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      581
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.83
<LOANS-NON>                                       813
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 2,110
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                1,925
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      79
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               1,891
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            1,891
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0
        

</TABLE>
259 La. 997

#### STATE of Louisiana v. William JONES.

No. 51890.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 16, 1971.

In re: William Jones applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J. is of the opinion the writ should not be considered, not complying with the rules of court. This would allow the writ to be resubmitted with proper attachments.
# - Scientific'"



# M~~~ **~l** Oll!lllIIAliKG II FOSIIIl! 899

**Lt~r;an** Street Suile 500 Dt!m•er; CO 8020J 1t

: / (JOJ)

**860-0J,~S** 

### fa.\· (JOJ) 861-4]/5 uorr'u'.J<')U.org October 27, 2015 Randall S. Fiertz Director, Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis Federal Aviation Administration 

### 800 Independen c e Avenue SW
. Washington, DC 20591 Dear Mr. Fiertz: The Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) is a statutory special district and political subdivision of the State of Colorado. The SCFD, pursuant to its authorizing statute(§ 32-13-101, 

### etseq., C.R.S.) and pursuant to the approval of its electors at elections held in 1988, 1994, 1995, and 2004, imposes a one-tenth ofone percent sales and use tax on all items on which the State ofColorado may impose sales and use tax. The State of Colorado assesses sales and use tax on aviation fuel. The State of Colorado, through its Department of Revenue, collects the SCFD sales and use tax, and remits the proceeds from that tax to the SCFD. The SCFD has recently become aware ofthe Federal Aviation Administration's amended policy, 64 FR 7696, regarding tax proceeds from aviation fuel and related compliance requirements through a memorandum issued by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs on August 18, 2015. On behalf ofthe SCFD, I am authorized to submit the following Aviation Fuel Complia- nce Plan ·to comply with



### thes~ **iequirements .**  SCFD Compliance Plan The SCFD is not authorized by statute to change its sales and use tax rate, nor is it authorized to change the items on which its sales and use tax is imposed and collected. Voter approval is required on the rate, and tax exemptions must be approved through the legislative process. However, there will be legislation introduced in the Colorado General Assembly's 2016 session , commencing January 13, 2016, which will include multiple proposed changes to the SCFD's authorizing statute. The SCFD will include in this



### leg **is~atiqn amended**  language in §32-13-105, C.R.S
., that will specifically exempt aviation· fuel from the SCFD's sales and use tax. Following pass· age by the Colorado State Senate and House of Representatives, this exemption would become effective upon the Governor's signature . Plea?.e
.q?rtact me .ifthere are questions regarding · this cotr)pliance plan or its



### !".'rfe~ema,t~o **:** 

## ,, . · · :

> ' ... o o o oo o • A • '\ *

. : t:r-.: Sincerely

_ yours, 

### .. :;

**~.- ~**  

### . .; .;'



# ~'xi-y Peg Long 

### ..., ' 

### .. . t:xecutive Director . CC: Alan D. Pogue, General Counsel Donna Stepan , Colorado Department of Revenue, Locai Gov=e!rhnierit Liaison



### . . . 

### . 

# ...

**~** ....
#### Willie EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-390.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 22, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Indian River County; Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Philip MOLICA and Frank Molica, Appellants, v. Ray TAYLOR and Sherree Taylor, Appellees.

No. 71-1057.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 29, 1972.

Ordered that motions are denied, the court dispensing with oral argument thereon; A. J. Hosemann, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Richard FELLER d/b/a Gold Coast Hurricane Panel Co., Appellant, v. BROWARD HURRICANE PANEL CO., Inc. and Gold Coast Awnings & Shutters, Inc., both Florida corporations et al., Appellees.

No. 402.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Feb. 27, 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1967.

*8Harry G. Carratt, of Morgan Carratt & O’Connor, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Russell E. Carlisle, of Carlisle & Zeiher, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, Gold Coast Awnings and Shutters, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant, Richard Feller doing business as Gold Coast Hurricane Panel Co., enjoining him from using the words “Gold Coast” in such circumstances and in such manner as to pass off his goods as those of the plaintiffs in sequence or in combination of its unmistakably distinguishing same from that of the plaintiffs in all promotion and advertising of his produce in an action brought by Broward Hurricane Panel Co., Inc. and Gold Coast Awnings & Shutters, Inc., plaintiffs.

The court has carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs and oral arguments of counsel for the parties. From such consideration we find no reversible error.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., ANDREWS, J., and McDONALD, PARKER LEE, Associate Judge, concur.