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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 2000, AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,370
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                        79
<INVENTORY>                                        109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,463
<PP&E>                                           2,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,861
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            96
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,181)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,088
<SALES>                                         11,340
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,967
<CGS>                                            2,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (995)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (459)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 727
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (375)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (375)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (375)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.04)


</TABLE>
[Cite as Buchanan v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2017-Ohio-2874.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

John A. Buchanan, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : 

v. : No. 16AP-840 

 (Ct. of Cl. No. 2016-00041) 

Ohio Department of : 

Rehabilitation and Correction, (ACCELERATED CALENDAR) 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

 : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on May 18, 2017 

 

On Brief: John A. Buchanan, pro se. 

On Brief: Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and 

Timothy M. Miller, for appellees. 

 

APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio 

TYACK, P.J. 

{¶ 1} John A. Buchanan is appealing from the judgment of the Court of Claims of 

Ohio. He assigns a single error for our consideration: 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE 

APPELLANT, DENYING HIM DUE PROCESS, BY 

DENYING HIS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND 

DISMISSING HIS IIED CLAIMS IN ITS NOV. 7, 2016 

ENTRY, ABSENT THE MAGISTRATE PREPARING AND 

FILING A DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH OHIO CIV. 

R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii). 

{¶ 2} Buchanan filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction ("ODRC") based on his claims that ODRC harmed him in "the scheduling of 
No. 16AP-840 2 

his medical appointments," denying him temporary orders and taking his wheelchair. 

Buchanan amended the complaint which initiated the case on two occasions. 

{¶ 3} The trial court assigned a magistrate to help conduct the proceedings, but 

ultimately dismissed parts of the case without the magistrate's impact. The trial court 

also overruled Buchanan's attempts to obtain a default judgment. 

{¶ 4} The record before us indicates that portions of the lawsuit remain pending, 

specifically certain negligence claims. This appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear an 

appeal if the trial court has not journalized a final appealable order as defined in R.C. 

2505.02. No such final appealable order has been journalized in this case. We, therefore, 

must and do dismiss this appeal. 

Appeal dismissed. 

SADLER and DORRIAN, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 955 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 955

To allow the National Park Service to acquire certain land for addition 
to the Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia, as previously authorized by 
          law, by purchase or exchange as well as by donation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 1999

 Mr. Warner (for himself, Mr. Robb, and Mr. McConnell) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To allow the National Park Service to acquire certain land for addition 
to the Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia, as previously authorized by 
          law, by purchase or exchange as well as by donation.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITION TO WILDERNESS BATTLEFIELD, VIRGINIA.

    (a) Removal of Condition on Battlefield Addition.--Section 2(a)(2) 
of Public Law 102-541 (16 U.S.C. 525k note; 106 Stat. 3565) is amended 
by striking ``: Provided,'' and all that follows through ``Interior''.
    (b) Authorized Methods of Acquisition.--
            (1) Acquisition of certain lands by donation.--Section 3(a) 
        of Public Law 101-214 (16 U.S.C. 425l(a)) is amended by adding 
        at the end the following new sentence: ``However, the lands 
        designated `P04-04' on the map referred to in section 2(a) 
        numbered 326-40072E/89/A and dated September 1990 may be 
        acquired only by donation.''.
            (2) Removal of restriction on acquisition of addition.--
        Section 2 of Public Law 102-541 (16 U.S.C. 525k note; 106 Stat. 
        3565) is amended by striking subsection (b).
    (c) Technical Correction.--Section 2(a) of Public Law 101-214 (16 
U.S.C. 425k(a)) is amended by striking ``Spotslyvania'' and inserting 
``Spotsylvania''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Davis, Appellant, vs. Schumacher, Respondent.

*October 12*

November *9, 1937.*

*77The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *David M. -Evans*of Waukesha, and for th'e respondent on that of *Matt Taylor*of Kenosha.

Fairchild, J.

The defendant seeks to defeat plaintiff’s claim by pleading a former judgment in the matter. Even a final judgment, is a bar to a subsequent action only as to grounds covered by it and the facts necessary to uphold it.

“The criterion is, was the same vital matter directly' in issue and determined.” 1 Herman, Estoppel and Res Judi-cata, p. 112, § 111.

The party relying upon the judgment has the burden of showing that the point in question was determined by it. 4 Jones, Evidence (1913 ed.), p. 889, § 600.

“Parties are not allowed to prove what is inconsistent with its [the judgment’s] rectitude and justice, for while it stands unreversed it is final as to the points decided, but not in respect to matters which the record itself shows were not in question, and therefore when a cause has gone off for some defect, which precluded an inquiry into its merits, the judgment is usually no bar to a second action.” 1 Herman, Estoppel and Res Judicata, p. 105, § 105.

In determining the real issue decided, resort may be had to the record of pleadings and proceedings as well as to the recorded judgment. *Gowan v. Hanson,*55 Wis. 341, 13 N. W. 238; *Terryll v. Bailey,*27 Minn. 304, 7 N. W. 261; Bower, Res Judicata, pp. 1.13-115, §§ 173-175. That the merits of the matter were not considered in the case wherein the decision relied upon by defendant as *res jtidicata*was made appears clearly from the record of the judgment and pleadings and proceedings there preserved. The particular issue passed upon by the court related only to the propriety of maintaining that action at that time. • The *78action was dismissed in the municipal court on the plea in abatement, the ruling of that court being in the following language:

> “By the Court: — T hold that inasmuch as there is another action growing out of this matter that is to be taken up on Monday, and attorney for plaintiff has claimed that the other court had no' jurisdiction, I will grant motion of defendant to dismiss this action, and allow him costs.’ Whereupon it is forthwith adjudged that this action be dismissed, that the defendant is entitled to the possession of the property described in the complaint, that the same has not been unjustly detained.”

*By the Court.*

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.
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.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

Per 45 CFR 2102.3, the next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for November 21, 2024, at 9 a.m. and will be held via online videoconference. Items of discussion may include buildings, infrastructure, parks, memorials, and public art.

                    Draft agendas, the link to register for the online public meeting, and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our website:                     *www.cfa.gov.*                     Inquiries regarding the agenda, as well as any public testimony, should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by emailing                     *cfastaff@cfa.gov;*                     or by calling 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.                

Dated November 4, 2024 in Washington, DC.

Zakiya N. Walters,

Administrative Officer.

[FR Doc. 2024-26248 Filed 11-12-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 88264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25850]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM01-5-000]


Electronic Tariff Filings; Notice of Final Codes for Deployment

    Take notice that the final set of codes and tables for the November 
25, 2024, deployment are posted at the same eLibrary Accession Number 
as this Notice. The following are the changes to filing-type codes 
since the September 30, 2024, Notice.
    Code 1090--Non-Jurisdictional filing Amendment--Changed to 
compliance type.
    The following new ALJ Settlement Codes have been added to 
accommodate settlement filings, such as settlements of complaints, for 
which the filer does not have an existing docket number with an 
associated filing identifier.

    Code 1385--ALJ Settlement--new docket
    Code 1395--ALJ Settlement--new docket
    Code 1405--ALJ Settlement--new docket
    Code 1415--ALJ Settlement--new docket
    Code 1425--ALJ Settlement--new docket

    These revisions will not be available in the test sandbox at 
https://etariff.ferc.gov/TariffSandbox2.aspx.
    Questions on these changes should be directed to: Michael 
Goldenberg at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1954707a71787c75375e76757d7c777b7c6b7e597f7c6b7a377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c01252f242d2920620b23202829222e293e2b0c2a293e2f622b233a">[email protected]</span></a> or James Sarikas at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#662c070b0315483507140f0d0715260003140548010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="014b606c64722f526073686a607241676473622f666e77">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 31, 2024.
Carlos D. Clay,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-25850 Filed 11-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 68 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 68

        For the relief of Dr. Yuri F. Orlov of Ithaca, New York.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

 Mr. Moynihan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        For the relief of Dr. Yuri F. Orlov of Ithaca, New York.

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

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF DR. YURI F. ORLOV OF ITHACA, NEW YORK.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Dr. 
Yuri F. Orlov of Ithaca, New York, shall be deemed an annuitant as 
defined under section 8331(9) of title 5, United States Code, and shall 
be eligible to receive an annuity.
    (b) Computation.--For purposes of computing the annuity described 
under subsection (a), Dr. Yuri F. Orlov shall be deemed to--
            (1) have performed 40 years of creditable service as a 
        Federal employee; and
            (2) received pay at the maximum rate payable for a position 
        above GS-15 of the General Schedule (as in effect on the date 
        of enactment of this Act) for 3 consecutive years of such 
        creditable service.
    (c) Contributions.--No person shall be required to make any 
contribution with respect to the annuity described under subsection 
(a).
    (d) Administrative Provisions.--The Director of the Office of 
Personnel Management shall--
            (1) apply the provisions of chapter 83 of title 5, United 
        States Code (including provisions relating to cost-of-living-
        adjustments and survivor annuity benefits) to the annuity 
        described under subsection (a) to the greatest extent 
        practicable; and
            (2) make the first payment of such annuity no later than 60 
        days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lyman Potter *v*. William Sturges.

From Stokes.

Where an agent collects money, no action accrues to the principal until a demand.

Assumpsit on an accountable receipt given by the Defendant, a constable, for two notes, expressing that the notes were received from the Plaintiff/or *collection.*

On the trial before Daniex, Judge, a verdict was taken for the Plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court, whether, upon the following facts, the Plaintiff had any cause of action.

The Plaintiff resided in the State of Massachusetts, and had no agent residing in this State. The Defendant collected the amount of one of the notes, and might have collected the otherno demand was made, before the Commencement of the action.

The presiding Judge was of opinion, that to sustain the action, it was necessary, that a previous demand should be shewn, or that at least there should have been a known agent of tlje Plaintiff within this State, authorized to receive the money, and directed the verdict to be set aside and a nonsuit entered, whereupon the Plaintiff appealed.

In this Court, no counsel appeared, and the opinion, of the Court was delivered by

Tayxor, Chief-Justice :

Both the law and justice of this case have been in my opinion, duly administered, for the Defendant had done no act to put him in the wrong. He was not bound to leave the State to go in pursuit of the Plaintiff', and the latter had no agent here, to whom the payment could be made. If a man receive money to a special purpose, as to account or merchandize, it cannot be demanded of him as a duty, till he has neglected or refused to apply it according to the trust, under which lie received it, and *80the declaration must shew a misapplication, or bread) of trust; and though a verdict for the Plaintiff will aid such a declaration, and it will be presumed afterwards, that the Defendant refused to account, yet here the objection was taken at the trial, and the point reserved.— The law distinctly recognizes the principle, that if goods are consigned to a factor for sale on commission, that a contract arises, that he will account for such as are sold, pay over the proceeds, and re-deliver the residue unsold, whenever a demand is made. Nor will an action lie against him for not accounting, till after a demand made of an account; and from that period only, will the statute of limitations begin to run against the Plaintiff.

If this is a just rule as applicable to persons living under the same *government;*it is more so, where the Plaintiff has left the country, and put it out of the Defendants power to pay the money. (1 *Salk.*9—1 T*aunton,*571.) I therefore think, a non suit ought to be entered up.

Judgment ' apeirmer.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 177 (Thursday, November 20, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2314-E2315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        TRIBUTE TO MARTHA FRANCO

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 20, 2008

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, in my years of public service, I have 
benefitted from the efforts of many capable employees on my staff who 
have come and gone. Yet there has always remained one constant in my 
office, Martha Franco, and for that I am truly grateful.
  Martha was born in Mexico and grew up in Colusa, California. As a 
naturalized citizen, she is a model example of someone who made the 
efforts required to become a U.S. citizen and has gone on to contribute 
to our country through public service.
  Martha first came to work for me in 1984 when I served in the 
California State Senate. When I was elected to Congress in 1990, Martha 
became my Executive Assistant and Office Manager. She has worked for me 
in Washington and in California, and this year I named her as my Deputy 
Chief of Staff.
  Martha's loyal presence has meant so much to my wife, Julie, to me, 
and to our entire organization. The people who call upon our office 
have appreciated seeing a familiar face

[[Page E2315]]

through the years, and I have appreciated having someone who knows the 
many people who have been important to us throughout my career. 
Martha's unsurpassed character and dedication have allowed me to trust 
her with confidential and sensitive materials and to do so with great 
confidence.
  Martha's spirit is demonstrated by her commitment to family as well. 
She cares for her father at home and is a wonderful aunt to her many 
nieces and nephews. I know she is looking forward to spending even more 
time with her large family as she begins a new chapter in her life.
  While our work together will soon end, Martha will always remain an 
important person in our lives. As she looks to new opportunities, I 
wish Martha all the best, and look forward to her continued friendship 
in the years to come.

                          ____________________
```
#### Ross, Respondent, vs. Koberstein and another, Appellants.

*December 3, 1935*

January 7, *1936.*

*74For the appellants there was a brief by *Sanborn, Blake & Aberg*and *Ernest H. Pett,*all of Madison, and oral argument by *Mr. Pett*and *Mr. W. J. P. Aberg.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Stephens, Slette-land, Sutherland & Cannon*of Madison, and oral argument by *Robert J. Sutherland.*

Fowler, J.

The only point raised on the appeal is that the court erroneously submitted the question of comparative negligence because it compared the negligence of the plaintiff with that of the driver of the automobile, instead of with the combined negligence of that driver and the driver of the truck in which the plaintiff was riding. There was error in this respect, but it did not prejudice the defendants.

The plaintiff was found negligent five per cent as compared to the defendant driver’s ninety-five per cent. But had his negligence been compared with the combined negligence of the two drivers the ratio of the plaintiff’s negligence to that of the two added together would necessarily have been less than when compared with that of the negligence of the defendant driver alone, if the driver of the truck were found negligent in any degree whatever. In that event the plaintiff’s recoverable damages would have been greater than they were under the verdict returned, as the comparative negligence statute requires that the recovery “shall be diminished by the jury in the proportion to the amount of negligence *75attributable to the person recovering.” Sec. 331.045, Stats. In *Walker v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co.*214 Wis. 519, 252 N. W. 721, as here, the plaintiff was found negligent and the driver of the automobile in which he was riding was not a party to the suit. It was there held that under the statute one term of the proportion is the negligence of the plaintiff, and “the causal negligence of all of the other participants in the transaction must be deemed to constitute the other term of the proportion.”

As the error assigned by the appellants operated in their favor instead of to their prejudice, they have no ground of complaint.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.