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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000874971
<NAME>                        BERTUCCI'S, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                               4,266
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          256
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                          1,048
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     7,581
<PP&E>                                             121,602
<DEPRECIATION>                                      29,705
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     102,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               10,438
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                44
<OTHER-SE>                                          67,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       102,528
<SALES>                                            128,044
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   128,044
<CGS>                                               32,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       32,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    81,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,283
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      5,158
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,933
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3,225
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3,225
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.36
        


</TABLE>
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July 20 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with Cummins FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer TO: Docket EPA- HQ - OAR- 2010 - 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on March 8 , 2011 b etween Cummins and EPA and included the following individuals: Cummins: Jackie Yeager , Jon Dickson , Gary Salemme , and Brian Mormino EPA: By ron Bunker and Angela Cullen The discussion focused primarily on the production and testing variability of engines .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  876,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,729,336
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,876,143
<PP&E>                                      19,891,501
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,656,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,514,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,742,020
<BONDS>                                      9,948,109
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,514
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,816,126
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,514,769
<SALES>                                      1,735,311
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,735,311
<CGS>                                        1,242,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,242,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,672,808
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             187,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,775,056)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,775,056)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,775,056)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ C ase No. 5D 20 22- 1812 LT Case No. 2020

- CA

- 0499

_____________________________ F IKRETA S ELIMANOVIC and I BRAHIM S ELIMANOVIC , A ppellant s,
v. J EFFREY B RYANT A NTHONY and J EFFREY H AMILTON A NTHONY , A ppellee s.

_____________________________ O n appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County

. Lauren P. Blocker, Judge

. A ndrew B. Greenlee, of Andrew B. Greenlee, P.A., Sanford , for Appellant s. K ansas Gooden, of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A. , Miami , and Lara J. Edelstein, Boca Raton, for Appellee s. June 25, 2024
P ER C URIAM
. A FFIRMED . E DWARDS , C.J. , and W ALLIS and S OUD , JJ., concur .2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
|                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |  |
| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218 |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

----

|              |                                                                                                                   |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Exhibit 99.1 | Slide presentation, utilized October 24, 2013, during conference call and web cast by First Merchants Corporation |

----

----

|             |             |
|-------------|-------------|
| Exhibit No. | Description |

|      |                                                                                                                   |
|------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 99.1 | Slide presentation, utilized October 24, 2013, during conference call and web cast by First Merchants Corporation |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 13, 2017

No. 04-17-00784-CV

ESTATE OF ESTELLA Q. CAMPOS, DECEASED,

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014PC3884

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record in this appeal shows the trial court signed an appealable order on 

September 22, 2017. The clerk’s record does not appear to contain any motion or order that 

would extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Thus, 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on October 23, 2017. See id. A motion for extension of 

time to file a notice of appeal was due not later than November 7, 2017. See id. R. 26.3. 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on November 22, 2016. Appellant’s notice of 

appeal appears to be untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 

617 (Tex. 1997) (“[O]nce the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule 

[26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.”).

We ORDER Appellant to SHOW CAUSE in writing within TWENTY-ONE days of the 

date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If Appellant 

fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(c).

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of December, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
*OPINION ISSUED FEBRUARY 4, 2008*

#### MANPOWER VS. MARSHALL UNIVERSITY

(CC-05-269)

Kevin Carr, Attorney at Law, for claimant.

Jendonnae L. Houdyschell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon an agreement between the parties.

Claimant seeks to recover for services rendered from January 12,1997, through March 22, 1998, in the amount of $50,316.07. Claimant alleges that respondent failed to reveal that temporary help services are a prevailing wage job. Therefore, claimant *97incurred expenses not anticipated in its contract with respondent.

Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, respondent states that claimant may recover $20,000.00 based upon the finding of this Court in its previous decision in *Aramark Facility Services Inc. v. Concord*University, CC-04-436 (September 6, 2005).

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to claimant in the amount of $20,000.00.

Award of $20,000.00.
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 20894.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 6, 1940.

J. W. McCullough, of McKinney, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated. The punishment assessed is a fine of $50 and confinement in the county jail for a period of 5 days.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The indictment is sufficient to charge the offense and procedural matters appear to be in due order.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Consent of Independent Auditors


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of Union National Financial Corporation of our report dated January 17,
1997, included in the 1996 Annual Report to Stockholders of Union National
Financial Corporation.

     We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Registration No. 33-80093) of Union National Financial Corporation
and in the related Prospectus of our report dated January 17, 1997, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Union National Financial Corporation
Incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1996.

                                               /s/ Trout, Ebersole & Groff, LLP
                                               ---------------------------------
March 21, 1997                                 TROUT, EBERSOLE & GROFF, LLP
Lancaster, Pennsylvania                        Certified Public Accountants

<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BLANCHE TRIVETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 95-2795 SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Carl Horn, III, Chief Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-8-5-H) Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: December 24, 1996 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELDianne Upson, Todd, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Kenneth M. Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM:Blanche Trivette appeals the magistrate judge's decision* affirming the determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) that she is not disabled from performing her past relevant work and therefore not entitled to social security disability benefits. Trivette argues that the evidence did not support a finding that she could perform her past relevant work as a housekeeper at AppalachianState University (ASU). She contends that her duties at ASU constituted medium work, rather than light work, as the Secretary found. We review the Secretary's final decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. Pass v. Chater , 65 F.3d 1200, 1202 (4th Cir. 1995). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to s upport a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). We find that substantial evidence supports the Secretary's decision. Under the sequential evaluation process set forth at 20 C.F.R.§ 416.920 (1996), the claimant bears the burden of proof and production through the fourth step of that process: determining whether the claimant is disabled from her past relevant work. Pass , 65 F.3d at 1203. The evidence was inconclusive as to whether Trivette's duties at ASU constituted light or medium work. She thus did not bear her evidentiary burden. More importantly, she did not present credibleevidence showing that her physical and mental capabilities deteriorated to the point that she was no longer able to perform her job. We accordingly affirm the decision of the magistrate judge. We dispense with oral argument because the materials before us reveal that argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________ *In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994), the pro ceedings were conducted by a magistrate judge with the parties' consent.
2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ADVANCE
PARADIGM, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 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>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          51,696
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                       148
<INVENTORY>                                      3,636
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,463
<PP&E>                                          10,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,683
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,308
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,271
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,308
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,710
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,112
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (672)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,206
<INCOME-TAX>                                       838
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,368
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,368
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DEANDRICK KEYON BACON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-504

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 7, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee 

County; Hunter Carroll, Judge.

J. Andrew Crawford of J. Andrew Crawford, 

P.A., Saint Petersburg, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2527 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 353
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2527

  To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the 
    amount of leverage made available to small business investment 
                               companies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 2018

  Mr. Cardin (for himself, Mr. Risch, and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Small Business and Entrepreneurship

                             March 19, 2018

                Reported by Mr. Risch, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the 
    amount of leverage made available to small business investment 
                               companies.

    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 ``Small Business Investment 
Opportunity Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. INDIVIDUAL SBIC LEVERAGE LIMIT INCREASE.

    Section 303(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Small Business Investment Act of 
1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking 
``$150,000,000'' and inserting ``$175,000,000''.
                                                       Calendar No. 353

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2527

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the 
    amount of leverage made available to small business investment 
                               companies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 19, 2018

                       Reported without amendment
```
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-19-00421-CV 

________________________

JORGE R. GARZA, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

DAVID BOWERS, CHRISTOPHER CATRON, ADAM PIERCE, 

LESLIE DINWIDDIE, AND BRANDON JACOBSON, APPELLEES 

 

On Appeal from the County Court 

Lamb County, Texas 

Trial Court No. CC-3352; Honorable James M. DeLoach, Presiding 

 

January 29, 2020 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before PIRTLE, PARKER, and DOSS, JJ. 

Pending before this court is a motion to dismiss this appeal filed by Appellant, 

Jorge R. Garza. Without passing on the merits of the appeal, Appellant’s motion is 

granted and the appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Having dismissed this 

appeal at Appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our 

mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2441 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2441

   To amend the Steel Industry American Heritage Area Act of 1996 to 
                     repeal the funding limitation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2018

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Steel Industry American Heritage Area Act of 1996 to 
                     repeal the funding limitation.

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

SECTION 1. RIVERS OF STEEL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

    Section 409(a) of the Steel Industry American Heritage Area Act of 
1996 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; 110 Stat. 4256; 113 Stat. 1501A-158; 122 
Stat. 824; 129 Stat. 2551) is amended by striking the second sentence.
                                 <all>
```