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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000926283
<NAME> JAMES CABLE FINANCE CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      10,237,124
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,116,631
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,198
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,789,240
<PP&E>                                      83,794,309
<DEPRECIATION>                              66,335,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,174,036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,308,631
<BONDS>                                    100,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (54,134,595)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,174,036
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,810,688
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,877,097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,917,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (999,454)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (999,454)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             15,887,169
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                14,887,715
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
exv10w2






			
	
	 	Lawrence D. Kingsley

Chairman and Chief Executive Office






IDEX Corporation




1925 West Field Court




Suite 200




Lake Forest, Illinois 60045-4824




United States




www.idexcorp.com




September 30, 2010




Harold Morgan

IDEX Corporation

1925 W. Field Court

Lake Forest, IL 60045



Dear Harold:



As part of our ongoing review of our executive compensation programs, IDEX Corporation seeks to
ensure that executives are provided market competitive protection benefits.



Based upon the results of that review, and while we fully expect that IDEX will continue to grow
and prosper as an independent publicly-traded company, we are offering the following levels of
benefit based upon your role as Vice President, Human Resources for IDEX Corporation in the case of
unforeseen circumstances.





	 	•	 	If, in the future, your employment with IDEX Corporation is terminated without cause
(“cause” defined as willful misconduct or fraudulent behavior), IDEX will pay you twelve
(12) months’ base salary at the then current monthly base rate plus your targeted annual
incentive bonus (MICP or equivalent plan) in a lump sum in exchange for a signed release
within 50 days of your termination. Such benefit will not be applicable in the event of
your voluntary termination.
	 
	 	•	 	All other provisions of your current IDEX compensation and benefits programs remain the
same.




Please indicate your acceptance of these provisions below.



Harold, we appreciate your contributions to IDEX and wish you continuing success.



Sincerely,



 








Lawrence D. Kingsley




Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




IDEX Corporation




 




 




	 	 	 

	


 
	 	9/30/10

	
          Acceptance of Provisions

	 	Date
	          Harold Morgan
**Exhibit 31.2**

I, Fran Ross, certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc.;

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations,  andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)       [omitted]

(c)       Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report; and

(d)       Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)       All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
|  Date:   September 1, 2006 |   | /s/ Fran Ross                                  |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   |   Fran Ross, Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LANDAIR CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               9
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,944
<ALLOWANCES>                                       615
<INVENTORY>                                        654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,386
<PP&E>                                         113,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,825
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,973
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,369
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               131,855
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (373)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,781)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (951)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,830)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,830)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.30)


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# 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:*                         October 31, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 24, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 531 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-153, K2025-151.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-25303 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 732 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 732

   To require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to 
 conduct an audit of purchases of military clothing and related items 
 made during fiscal year 1998 by certain military installations of the 
                Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 1999

Mr. Torricelli introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to 
 conduct an audit of purchases of military clothing and related items 
 made during fiscal year 1998 by certain military installations of the 
                Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

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

SECTION 1. AUDIT OF PROCUREMENT OF MILITARY CLOTHING AND CLOTHING-
              RELATED ITEMS BY CERTAIN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

    (a) Audit Requirement.--The Inspector General of the Department of 
Defense shall perform an audit of purchases of military clothing and 
clothing-related items in excess of the micro-purchase threshold that 
were made during fiscal year 1998 by certain military installations to 
determine the extent to which such installations procured military 
clothing and clothing-related items in violation of the Buy American 
Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.) and section 9005 of Public Law 102-396 (10 
U.S.C. 2241 note) during that fiscal year.
    (b) Installations To Be Audited.--The audit under subsection (a)--
            (1) shall include an audit of the procurement of military 
        clothing and clothing-related items by four military 
        installations of each of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine 
        Corps; and
            (2) shall be limited to military installations in the 
        United States or the possessions of the United States.
    (c) Definition.--As used in subsection (a), the term ``micro-
purchase threshold'' has the meaning provided by 32(f) of the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428(f)).
    (d) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2000, the Inspector 
General of the Department of Defense shall submit to Congress a report 
on the results of the audit performed under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
#### Bertha Neitz, Appellee, v. William Hilker *et al.,*Appellants.

Appeal: record: bill of exceptions.

*Appeal from Harding District Gowt.*— Hon. John L. Stevens, Judge.

Wednesday, May 25, 1892.

Action at law to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. There was a trial by jury resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The defendants' appeal, assigning as error certain rulings admitting and rejecting testimony, and the giving and refusing certain instruc*tions.*

Affirmed.

*Hyatt Hyatt,*for appellants.

*C. H. AlbrooTc,*for appellee.

*744Given, J.

This action is based upon a charge of larceny made against this plaintiff and her husband, Hermann Neitz, jointly. The appellee moves to strike the evidence, and to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the district court, on the grounds, among others, that there is no proper bill of exceptions, and the evidence is not sufficiently authenticated. The case is much the same in this respect as that of *Neitz v. Hilker,*84 Iowa, 459. The case is before us upon the abstract, additional abstracts and transcript. The abstracts fail to show that the evidence was preserved by bill of exceptions, or certified by either the reporter or the judge. The transcript shows the pleadings, record of the proceedings, instructions given, verdict, motion for new trial, judgment and a copy of a deposition and certain exhibits. Attached to this is what purports to be the reporter’s transcript, in type-writing, of his shorthand notes of the testimony, properly certified by him, the whole transcript being properly certified by the clerk. It does not appear that the testimony was preserved by bill of exceptions; that neither the shorthand notes nor the extension thereof was ever certified by the judge. The motion to strike the evidence must be sustained, and, as the errors assigned cannot be considered without the evidence, the motion to affirm the judgment must be sustained. Affirmed.
CORRECTED COPY

The FAA is reissuing the letter dated July 2nd. A correction was made to add the “What You 

Should Do” section. Below is the letter that includes the change. We made the correction in 

our records as of July 6, 2015.

July 2, 2015

Mr. Paul Glinski

5840 W. Lawrence Ave. #301

Chicago, IL 60630

Dear Mr. Glinski:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 31, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0859), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21
                                ALEXANDER'S, INC.
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

Alexander's of Brooklyn, Inc.
Alexander's Kings, LLC
Alexander's Kings Plaza, LLC
Alexander's Paramus, LLC
Alexander's of Rego Park II, Inc.
Alexander's of Rego Park III, Inc.
Alexander's of Flushing, Inc.
Alexander's Department Stores of New Jersey, Inc.
Alexander's Department Stores of Brooklyn, Inc.
Kings Parking, LLC
Ownreal Inc.
Sakraf Wine & Liquor Store, Inc.
Alexander's Personnel Providers, Inc.
Alexander's Rego Shopping Center Inc.
731 Commercial Holding LLC
731 Commercial LLC
731 Residential Holding LLC
731 Residential LLC
731 Office One Holding LLC
731 Office One LLC
731 Office Two Holding LLC
731 Office Two LLC
731 Restaurant LLC
Alexander's Restaurant LLC
Alexander's Management LLC
Alexander's of Brooklyn II LLC
Kings Plaza Lender LLC
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Billy F. Mitcham, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mitcham Industries, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.   Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.
Opinion issued November 5, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00927-CV

———————————

IN RE AKHIL PATEL, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Akhil Patel challenges the trial 

court’s order of October 21, 2013 granting a continuance of the hearing on his 

summary judgment motion.1 

 

1

The underlying case is Nadia Hussain v. Akhil Patel, No. 2013-18455, in the 

125th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Kyle Carter

presiding. 
2

We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. All outstanding motions 

are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown.
#### The Wisconsin, Iowa & Nebraska R’y Co. v. The Iowa Toilers’ Protective Association et al.

1. Appeal: evidence not certified in time. An appeal in an equity ease will be dismissed where it appears that the evidence was not certified within six months after the rendition of the decree.

*Appeal from Jasper District Oov/rt.*

Tuesday, December 21.

This is an action in equity, by which the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the construction of a railroad over certain described lands in Jasper county. There was a decree for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

*Geo. W. Wilson,*for appellants.

*Hulhard, Olarh*ds *Dawley,*for appellee.

Rothrock, J.

The plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the certificate of the judge, authenticating the evidence in the court below, was not signed within the time allowed for an appeal. It appears from the record that the decree was entered on the nineteenth day of March, 1885. It is claimed the appeal was taken August 17, 1885; but the certificate of the judge was not made until December 11, 1885, more than six months after decree.

Following the case of *Mitchell v.*Laub, 59 Iowa, 36, the appeal must be

Dismissed.