alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1914 

To designate the Federal building housing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives Headquarters located at 99 New York Avenue 

NE., Washington, DC, as the ‘‘Eliot Ness ATF Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 13, 2014 

Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. KIRK, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building housing the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Headquarters 

located at 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC, 

as the ‘‘Eliot Ness ATF Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eliot Ness ATF Build5 ing Designation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF ELIOT NESS ATF BUILDING. 

7 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building housing 

8 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1914 IS

1 Headquarters located at 99 New York Avenue NE. in 

2 Washington, DC, shall be known and designated as the 

3 ‘‘Eliot Ness ATF Building’’. 

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg5 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

6 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection 

7 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Eliot Ness 

8 ATF Building’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### James B. CROWDER, Jr. v. STATE.

No. 36644.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
Table 11.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit, for the United States and Regions:
                  Third Quarter 2001 and 2000

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                                   Third quarter 2001


                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      9.0       7.1       7.6      11.5       7.6
      For rent...........................      2.6       1.9       2.5       3.2       2.4
      For sale only......................      1.2       0.8       1.2       1.5       1.0
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.8       0.8       0.8       0.8       0.7
      Held off market....................      4.4       3.7       3.1       6.0       3.5
        For occasional use...............      1.6       1.1       0.4       2.4       1.7
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.8       0.7       0.7       1.0       0.5
        For other reasons................      2.0       1.9       2.0       2.6       1.3

    Seasonal vacant......................      2.9       3.7       2.9       2.6       2.7

    Occupied.............................     88.2      89.2      89.5      85.9      89.7




                                                   Third quarter 2000

Type of housing unit
                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      8.8       7.5       7.8      11.0       7.4
      For rent...........................      2.6       2.0       2.6       3.1       2.1
      For sale only......................      1.0       0.7       0.9       1.3       0.9
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.9       0.8       1.0       0.9       0.8
      Held off market....................      4.4       4.0       3.3       5.8       3.6
        For occasional use...............      1.6       1.5       0.6       2.2       1.7
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.8       0.8       0.7       1.0       0.6
        For other reasons................      2.0       1.8       2.0       2.5       1.3

    Seasonal vacant......................      2.8       3.3       2.6       2.8       2.7

    Occupied.............................     88.3      89.2      89.6      86.2      89.9
#### NORTH BAY VILLAGE, a Municipal corporation, Appellant, v. 100 S.W. 30TH AVE. CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 68-270.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 15, 1968.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Western Massachusetts Electric CompanyExhibit 12Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges(Thousands of Dollars)For the Years Ended December 31,20082007200620052004Earnings, as defined:Net income$18,330$23,604$15,644$15,085$12,373Income tax expense10,54514,5867,7669,2947,187Equity in (earnings)/losses of regional nucleargenerating companies(101)(526)241(311)(149)Dividends received from regional equity investees-701372103687Fixed charges, as below21,91022,16221,08719,80117,156Less: Interest capitalized (including AFUDC)(1,010)(983)(853)(455)(220)Total earnings, as defined$49,674$59,544$44,257$43,517$37,034Fixed charges, as defined:Interest on long-term debt (a)$13,244$11,577$10,671$9,535$6,655Interest on rate reduction bonds5,1335,8396,7237,5708,332Other interest (b)1,2562,4301,5071,041782Rental interest factor1,2671,3331,3331,2001,167Interest capitalized (including AFUDC)1,010983853455220Total fixed charges, as defined$21,910$22,162$21,087$19,801$17,156Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges2.272.692.102.202.16(a)
Interest on long-term debt amounts include amortized premiums, discounts and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness.

(b)
For the year ended December 31, 2008, other interest includes interest expense related to Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, "Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes - an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109."
hs pike i ca Po wh tet tes
ska om ton Lo dng of Dame, 110, wm

‘tori

Miglaks bn i AE

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

|

2

Ly

22

ol — =—

| ra

a : 1

Lee ed ea ELE £1 ES BA Wee Pease Sa Lp ae Ae } jo}

a7 | ZA re | PE a |

a) a ts aL. |

” (Bettas | 4, Jere |

” ( C
‘in 8 lax at i

1 I I
rs = a . 4
oe la. Pasar (eae
14 Ea Loess |
o- ‘ds. Lond anadl sd. i
: dia y IO Ae A
QC peraersdic L Llig ssc >
: rap a! v
[24 | zi
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements  of Midwest  Express  Holdings,  Inc. as of and for the period  ended
September  30,  1998 and is  qulaified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-20-1998
<CASH>                                         27,967
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                   236
<INVENTORY>                                    4,043
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               50,266
<PP&E>                                         233,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                 79,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          87,708
<BONDS>                                        3,246
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       145
<OTHER-SE>                                     89,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,691
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               292,332
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  249,182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               64
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                44,186
<INCOME-TAX>                                   16,551
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   27,635
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.93
        

</TABLE>
#### Susan Thelma LEMUS, formerly Susan Thelma Petersen, Appellant, v. Gunther H. PETERSEN, Appellee.

No. 71-570.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. •

April 5, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Second Quarter 1996 and 1995
         
        
 Area 
                                        Second   Second  Standard   Standard
                                       quarter  quarter  error on   error on
                                         1996     1995  1996 rate difference
                                                                       
 United States.......................    65.4     64.7      0.2       0.2
                                                                        
   Inside MAs........................    63.6     62.9      0.2       0.3
    In central cities................    50.0     49.4      0.3       0.5
    Not in central cities (suburbs)..    72.4     71.5      0.2       0.3
   Outside MAs.......................    72.7     71.7      0.4       0.5
                                                                        
  Northeast..........................    62.3     62.3      0.4       0.6
  Midwest............................    70.5     68.5      0.4       0.5
  South..............................    67.2     66.5      0.3       0.4
  West...............................    59.8     59.8      0.4       0.5

Source: U.S. Census Bureau
260 La. 126

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jim GARRISON.

No. 51947.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 13, 1971.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writs of review and remedial writs.

Writ refused. The ruling of the trial judge is correct. A district attorney *ad hoc*has no authority to institute a new and different criminal prosecution against the defendant. Both Article 682 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure and the order of appointment are explicit on this point. Article 682 restricts the powers of the district attorney *ad hoc*to the cases in which he was appointed. The order of appointment provides: “. . . the said appointee shall act as district attorney ad hoc, in and for the parish of Orleans, *with reference to these cases only*. . .”
# Table 1

# Table 2

&"Times New Roman,Bold"&16 

# Table 3

# Table 4

# Table 5

# Table 6

# Table 7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statements of income (loss) on pages
F-2 through F-5 of the Company's annual report on Form 10-K and is qualified in
it's entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,283
<SECURITIES>                                       527
<RECEIVABLES>                                      274
<ALLOWANCES>                                       141
<INVENTORY>                                         38
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,102
<DEPRECIATION>                                     424
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                         3,900
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,538
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,126
<SALES>                                          1,128
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,982
<CGS>                                            1,226
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   556
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 230
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,692)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,789)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)
        

</TABLE>
#### Albert TATU, Appellant, v. Roy E. MENEFEE et al., Appellees.

No. 70-781.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 11, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Fantine HARPER v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50483.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 26, 1978.

Scales & Scales, Fred T. Rucker, Jackson, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen A. Gilfoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appel-lee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### Charles COOPER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-878.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 4, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler and Charles D. Peters, Asst. Public Defenders, and Marc R. Goldstein, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

HASTINGS, ALCEE L„ Associate Judge.

Charles Cooper was informed against for robbery. On May 8,1975, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Subsequently, the court *1317pronounced judgment and sentence and this appeal followed.

Several matters have been assigned as error, but this court deals with the assignment questioning the trial court’s failure to grant the judgment of acquittal where the totality of the evidence was insufficient to justify the case going to the jury for determination. Reflecting on the entire record below, and comparing it with the well founded principles established in a long line of cases in Florida, it appears the verdict must be set aside.

On March 6, 1975, pursuant to a bolo regarding a robbery an officer gave chase to a vehicle fitting the description of the bolo. The information contained in the bolo apparently came from an anonymous tipster.

Testimony elicited during the trial established that a lady, on the same day, was knocked down by an assailant and her purse was snatched. The lady did not testify that she saw the assailant get into any vehicle at all. Further, she gave a description of her assailant as being a young black male, wearing a T-shirt, blue jeans and tennis shoes. She was unable to identify any person in a line-up as the assailant.

The officer testified that while he was chasing the car “something” came out on the passenger’s side of the vehicle. Further, the testimony showed that the officer stopped the vehicle and two persons were in it. The appellant was one of the persons. Both were arrested and searched. It turns out they both had money but the denominations were not the same, nor the amount, as that taken from the lady.

Subsequently the lady’s purse was retrieved in the vicinity where the officer saw the object fly from the vehicle in which the appellant was apprehended.

The ultimate question on appeal was whether the above stated facts are sufficient to prove the defendant guilty of robbery. We hold that they are not and that the trial court erred in not granting the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions that the defendant be discharged.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Richard A. Wisot, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Transpro, 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)) 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
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 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 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:  August 16, 2004                 /s/ Richard A. Wisot
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Richard A. Wisot
                                       Chief Financial Officer

                                       22
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT
S.W., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-37 December 27, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Lawrence M. Lefler, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Jami L. Chalgren, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SILBERMAN, BLACK, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Ronald Edward WETHERINGTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1385.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 13, 1972.

Nathaniel L. Barone, Jr., and Carling H. Stedman, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevm, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Barry J. Clyman, Legal Intern, for appel-lee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny. His contention on this appeal therefrom is insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

As stated by this court in Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24, 25, a judgment of conviction comes to this court with a presumption of correctness; a claim of insufficiency of the evidence will not prevail where examination of the record *295reveals there was substantial competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment, with due regard given to the quantum of proof required in such a case; and in so considering the evidence the appellate court is entitled to accept, in favor of the judgment, inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence which support the charge.

Conflicts in evidence, and that it may have been susceptible of differing inferences and presented the trier of the facts with questions as to credibility of witnesses and weight to be given to testimony and other evidence presented, will not establish insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a judgment of conviction when the record discloses there was competent substantial evidence sufficient in law for its support.

Having due regard for those principles, this court upon examination of the record holds the contention of the appellant of insufficiency of the evidence in this case is without merit. No useful purpose would be served by restating the evidence presented at trial.

The judgment is affirmed.