alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 8566.

#### The Toledo Belt Railway Co. et al. *v.*The Toledo Railway & Terminal Co.

Decided January 25, 1910.

*Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey; Messrs. Smith & Beckwith*and *Messrs. Seiders & Monnette-,*for plaintiffs in. error.

*Messrs. Hamilton & Kirby; Messrs. Brozvn, Geddes, Schmettau & Williams*and *Messrs. King & Tracy,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, C. J., Crew, Spear,. Davis,Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

83 FR 25496, June 1, 2018.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:

 Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING:

 The Open Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. has been changed to Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 11:30 a.m. The following items will not be considered during the Commission's Open Meeting:
      - Whether to adopt a new rule as well as amendments to rules and forms to provide certain registered investment companies (“funds”) with an optional method to transmit shareholder reports.
      - whether to issue a release requesting comment about processing fees for delivering shareholder reports and other materials to fund investors.
      - whether to issue a release requesting comment from individual investors and other interested parties on how to enhance the delivery, design, and content of fund disclosures, including shareholder reports and prospectuses.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: June 4, 2018.

Brent J. Fields,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-17390 Filed 8-9-18; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       9,576,144
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,245,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (450,938)
<INVENTORY>                                  8,038,428
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,935,173
<PP&E>                                       5,040,888<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,495,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,271,503
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,065
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,313,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,495,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,795,332
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,486,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,462,668
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,705,751)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,705,751)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,705,751)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.88)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.88)<F2>
<FN>
<F1>PP&E IS SHOWN NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AS REPORTED WITHIN THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K ON THE BALANCE SHEET
<F2>IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128 "EARNINGS PER SHARE-BASIC" IS REPORTED AS THE
VALUE FOR EPS-PRIMARY TAG AND "EARNINGS PER SHARE-DILUTED" IS REPORTED AS THE
VALUE FOR EPS-DILUTED TAG
</FN>


</TABLE>
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J.A. FISCHER, D.C. KING, S.A. DOMINGUEZ

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

BENJAMIN C. LEIGHTON

GAS TURBINE SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN THIRD CLASS

(E

- 4), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201500321

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 23 July 2015

. Military Judge: CAPT R.J. Crow, JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Naval Station

Mayport, Jacksonville, FL

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LT M. Martin, JAGC,

USN

. For Appellant: Maj Michael Berry, USMC R

. For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller , Esq

.

1 4 January 2016

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

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

After careful consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         380,438
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  410,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,414,490
<PP&E>                                         577,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                 537,209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,999,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,389,019
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           632
<OTHER-SE>                                     571,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,999,099
<SALES>                                         71,118
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,118
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,218
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,918
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,300
<EPS-BASIC>                                      51.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    51.11


</TABLE>
# C_2013312EN.01000102.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6751 — BayWa/Wilhelm Bonhorst/Bohnhorst Agrarhandel JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 312/02

On 6 February 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6751. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6751. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2044 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2044

   To improve transparency and efficiency with respect to audits and 
   communications between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 26, 2014

Mrs. Fischer (for herself, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Johanns) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To improve transparency and efficiency with respect to audits and 
   communications between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES TO TAXPAYER CORRESPONDENCE.

    Not later than 30 days after receiving any written correspondence 
from a taxpayer, the Internal Revenue Service shall provide a 
substantive written response. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 
an acknowledgment letter shall not be treated as a substantive 
response.

SEC. 3. TAXPAYER NOTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURES BY IRS OF TAXPAYER 
              INFORMATION.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after disclosing any 
taxpayer information to any agency or instrumentality of Federal, 
State, or local government, the Internal Revenue Service shall provide 
a written notification to the taxpayer describing--
            (1) the information disclosed,
            (2) to whom it was disclosed, and
            (3) the date of disclosure.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary of 
the Treasury, or the Secretary's designee, determines that such 
notification would be detrimental to an ongoing criminal investigation 
or pose a risk to national security.

SEC. 4. DEADLINE FOR CONCLUSION OF AUDITS OF INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.

    Any audit of a tax return of an individual by the Internal Revenue 
Service shall be concluded not later than 1 year after the date of the 
initiation of such audit and the Internal Revenue Service shall not 
assess any tax with respect to which such audit relates after the 
conclusion of such audit.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.6

A.T. Cross Company

Incentive Compensation Plan - 2003

Introduction

The following Incentive Plan (the "Plan") will be implemented for 2003.  The purpose of the Plan is to drive participants towards achievement of corporate goals and to motivate, retain and reward participants.  For 2003, the Plan will calculate incentive awards for all participants based on achieving annual corporate financial objectives.  The award will then be modified based on a combination of business unit/territory/region performance and individual/other performance objectives.  For 2003, the corporate financial objective will be a combination of Operating Income Before Taxes (OIBT) and Net Sales targets.  All other performance objectives will be determined based on individual responsibilities and agreed upon by the President and CEO with the appropriate Vice President.

Performance Measures

OIBT is the primary driver of the award.  The corporate incentive award will be established based on a funding matrix (example below) considering both OIBT and Net Sales.

The incentive pool is created when certain levels of sales and OIBT are achieved.  Based on the level of achievement and considering the funding matrix the pool will be created by multiplying the corporate payout multiple, from the matrix, for the achievement level by the base pay of participants and then by the target bonus level of participants.
RECEIVED 

MAR -1 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

v. 

Continental Airlines Inc. 

Respondent 

FAA Docket CP11SWOOOO 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0775 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

The Administrator and Respondent have entered into an agreement to settle the 

above styled matter; therefore the Administrator withdraws his complaint. 

Respectfully submitted, 

David L. Donnell 

Southwest Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

By:~~ Tim Duff 

Attorney 

(817) 222-5099 

(817) 222-5945 fax 

tim.duff@faa.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Syntellect, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December
31, 1996, and the consolidated statement of operations of Syntellect, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the twelve months ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,928
<SECURITIES>                                     1,275
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,977
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,233
<INVENTORY>                                      4,085
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,235
<PP&E>                                          24,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           135
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,886
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,808
<SALES>                                         31,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,305
<CGS>                                           18,645
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,555
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   480
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  33
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,780)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,780)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,780)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.21)


</TABLE>
#### In re Richard Francis CONRAD, Student Registrant.

No. 36831.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 24, 1968.

William G. O’Neill, Ocala, Chairman, for Florida Board of Bar Examiners.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the certificate of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners filed herein November 10, 1967 and the transcript of hearing of October 27, 1967 and other documents filed herein relating to the fitness of the applicant to take the Florida Bar examination, it is

Ordered that the Board’s recommendation is rejected. In the event said Richard Francis Conrad successfully concludes his legal education and receives an appropriate degree, he shall be allowed to take the examination.

Nothing herein contained shall preclude appropriate action upon any matter not covered by the file and transcript herein relating to the fitness of said applicant between the date hereof and such time as he takes said examination.

Copies of the Board’s certificate of November 10th and of this Order shall be retained in the permanent file of the applicant in the office of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners.

It is so ordered.

CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW, ERVIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

THORNAL, J., concurs specially with Opinion.

THORNAL, Justice

(concurring specially)-

In view of the fact that this applicant is currently enrolled in an accredited Florida law college, and, according to a letter from the Dean of that College, he will be permitted to take the final examination, and if successful will be issued a diploma, I would permit him to register as an applicant and take the Bar Examination if at that time he is found qualified, any showing in the instant record to the contrary notwithstanding. I am, frankly, persuaded to this conclusion by the fact that this young man is considered acceptable as a student by a splendid law school and, upon meeting academic requirements, will be approved for a diploma by a dean whose judgment I highly regard. Otherwise I would have *210grave doubts about the soundness of our conclusion.

Subject to the foregoing, I concur in the judgment.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3001

To amend section 110 of title 38, United States Code, to liberalize the

standard for preservation of disability evaluations for compensation purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1993

Mr. SLATTERY (by request) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend section 110 of title 38, United States Code, to

liberalize the standard for preservation of disability evaluations for compensation purposes.

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

3 That section 110 of title 38, United States Code, is

4 amended—

5 (1) by striking out ‘‘compensation, pension,’’ in

6 the first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘pen7 sion’’; and

8 (2) by striking out ‘‘twenty’’ in the second sen9 tence and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘fifteen’’.

Æ
#### James William LEONARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-752.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 18, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2013208EN.01000101.xml

| 23.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6925 — Allianz Group/OMERS Group/Net4Gas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 208/01

On 17 July 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6925. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6925. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### The MIAMI HERALD and Travelers Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Charles LEVINE, and Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 43509.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 25, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 9, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
No. 72-6092.

#### Jones *v.*Missouri.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 4, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

131303 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. JOSEPH P. URBIS and CATHY MUNOZ, Stephen J. Markman, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Justices JESSICA LEE URBIS, Plaintiff-Appellees,

v SC: 131303 COA: 266354 Court of Claims: 04-000186-MD DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERS E the judgment of the Court of Appeals and
we REMAND this case to th e Court of Claims for entr y of an order granting the defendant’s motion for summary disposition. The plain tiff’s claim is barred by governmental immunity. The highway exce ption to governmental immunity does not apply because the shoulder of a highway is not part of the “imp roved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel” fo r purposes of the highway exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1402(1), and is not “designed for vehicular travel.” Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation , 475 Mich 72, 73 (2006).

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would deny leave to appeal.

s0927 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 4, 2006

Clerk