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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               4,835,139
<SECURITIES>                                        20,957,439
<RECEIVABLES>                                       50,828,057
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (8,913,557)
<INVENTORY>                                          4,585,655
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    77,559,861
<PP&E>                                              46,945,686
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (11,183,607)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     157,350,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               20,290,874
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                43,829
<OTHER-SE>                                         120,250,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       157,350,525
<SALES>                                             30,562,832
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    30,562,832
<CGS>                                                9,446,816
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       25,754,685
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     381,197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      4,901,069
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2,080,237
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  2,820,832
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                         2,820,832
<EPS-BASIC>                                               0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0.36



</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.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

The following Commission meeting has been cancelled. No earlier announcement of the cancellation was possible.

# TIME AND DATE:

2:00 p.m., Thursday, January 29, 2015.

# PLACE:

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        It was determined by a unanimous vote of the Commissioners that the Commission consider and act upon the following in closed session:                         *Brody Mining, LLC*                         v.                         *Secretary of Labor,*                         Docket Nos. WEVA 2014-82-R, et al. (Issues include whether to grant the Secretary of Labor's Emergency Motion for Stay of ALJ's Order Dismissing Pattern-of-Violations Notice.)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2015-01921 Filed 1-28-15; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
No. 91-6149.

#### Seaton-El *v.*Fitzner et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Valde Connections, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as amended, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen W. Carnes, President, Director and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

\s\          Stephen W. CarnesStephen W. CarnesPresident December 23, 2003

----
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1998 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify the Committees on 

Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives and 

certain Members of Congress before the expiration or termination of 

a HUD-VASH contract, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2017 

Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. TAKANO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify the 

Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives and certain Members of Congress before the expiration or termination of a HUDVASH contract, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION OF TERMINATION OR EXPIRA4 TION OF A HUD-VASH CONTRACT. 

5 (a) NOTIFICATION.—Not later than 90 days before 

6 the date on which a HUD-VASH contract terminates or 

7 expires, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall notify the 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1998 IH

1 relevant committees and Members of Congress of such ter2 mination or expiration. 

3 (b) PLAN.—Not later than 60 days after the date of 

4 a notification under subsection (a), the Secretary shall no5 tify the relevant committees and Members of Congress of 

6 the plan of the Secretary to provide assistance to veterans 

7 served under such contract. 

8 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

9 (1) The term ‘‘HUD-VASH contract’’ means a 

10 contract for assistance under section 8(o)(19) of the 

11 United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 

12 1437f(o)(19)). 

13 (2) The term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ has the 

14 meaning given such term in section 7297(a)(7) of 

15 title 38, United States Code. 

16 (3) The term ‘‘relevant committees and Mem17 bers of Congress’’ includes the following: 

18 (A) The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of 

19 the Senate. 

20 (B) The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of 

21 the House of Representatives. 

22 (C) Each Member of Congress from the ju23 risdiction covered by a HUD-VASH contract 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1998 IH

1 for which the Secretary must issue a notifica2 tion under subsection (a). 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Excelsior Import Associates, Inc. v. The United States,

No. 78-3

(583 F. 2d 513)

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,

October 12, 1978

*Shaw and Stedina,*attorneys of record, for appellant, *Charles P. Deem,*of counsel.

*Barbara Allen Babcock,*Assistant Attorney General, *David M. Cohen,*Chief Customs Section, *Qierm E. Harris, Laura D. Millman*for the United States.

[Oral argument on October 2, 1978 by Charles P. Deem for appellant and by Glenn E. Harris for appellee]

Before Mahke sr, Chief Judge, Rich, Baldwin, Milleb, Associate Judges, and Foed,* Judge.

*

 The Honorable Morgan Ford, Associate Judge, U.S. Customs Court, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the judgment of the U.S. Customs Court, 79 Cust. Ct. 144, C.D. 4726, 444 F. Supp. 780 (1977). The court held that  plaintiff (appellant) had not overcome the presumption of correctness of the classification of the imported shirts under TSUS item 382.00, and had not proven its claimed classification (TSUS 382.33) correct.

*2Upon thorough consideration of the record, briefs, and oral arguments, we are in full agreement with the opinion of Judge Boe and adopt it as our own adding only the following comments.

Appellant’s contention, that error occurred in the characterization of its witness’ testimony as “unsupported personal opinion,” is without merit.  Uncorroborated testimony of a witness may establish a *'prima, jade*case only when it is uncontradicted, or is entitled to greater weight than the evidence of the other party. *See United States*v. *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.,*37 CCPA 48, C.A.D. 418 (1949); *United States*v. *William Shaland,*30 Cust. Ct. 575, A.R.D. 12 (1953).

Equally without merit are appellant’s contentions that the Government’s witnesses were incompetent to testify respecting the Indian gauze shirt trade and that the Government did not prove the shirts “ornamented articles” in an accepted trade sense. Government witness Sloan testified that consumers did not differentiate between Indian and American fabrics in deciding whether tucks enhanced a garment’s appearance, and that most purchases are made on the basis of appearance alone, regardless of fabric. That uncontradicted testimony rendered irrelevant the status of the shirts in the Indian gauze shirt trade. The well-established rule respecting trade sense is that “before the plain understanding of a term can be deviated from it must be shown by plenary proof to have a different import in trade and commerce.” *United States*v. *Wells, Fargo & Co.,*1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 158, 161, T.D. 31211 (1911). The Government relied on the plain understanding of the term “ornamented” articles. [3] Thus, appellant had the burden of proving that “ornamented” textile articles, as used in the TSUS, had a commercial designation or trade sense different from the common meaning or plain understanding of that phrase. It introduced no evidence in support of that burden. Government witness testimony that the tucks were “ornamental” was therefore sufficient.

The judgment is *affirmed.*
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffNUREG-1885

# Report to Congress on the Security Inspection Program for Commercial Power Reactors and Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities: Results and Status Update - Annual Report for Calendar Year 2011 (NUREG-1885, Revision 5)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1885, Revision 5 (PDF - 761.12 KB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** August 2012**Date Published:** September 2012

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report fulfills the requirements of Section 170D of Chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), as amended, which states, “not less often than once each year, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report, in classified form and unclassified form, that describes the results of each security response evaluation conducted and any relevant corrective action taken by a licensee during the previous year.” This is the seventh annual report, which covers calendar year 2011. In addition to information on the security response evaluation program (force-on-force inspections), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing additional information regarding the overall security performance of the commercial nuclear power industry and Category I fuel cycle facilities to keep Congress and the public informed of the NRC’s efforts to protect public health and safety, the common defense and security, and the environment through the effective regulation of the Nation’s commercial nuclear power facilities and strategic special nuclear material.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
No. 90-6127.

#### Taylor *v.*T. K. International, Inc., et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 11
                      Microware Systems Corporation
             Computation of Net Earnings (Loss) per Share (1)
            (Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     Three months ended     Six months ended
                                        September 30,         September 30,
                                     --------------------  -------------------
                                        1997        1996     1997       1996
                                     --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                  <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Net (loss) earnings                   ($3,586)      $767   ($5,768)    $1,514
                                     ========   ========   ========   ========

Reconciliation of weighted average 
   number of shares outstanding
   to amount used in net (loss)
   earnings per share computation:
    Weighted average number of
       common shares outstanding       14,422     13,624     14,250     13,116
    Dilutive effect of warrants           -          692        -          591
    Dilutive effect of options            -        1,971        -        2,193
                                     --------   --------   --------   --------
                                       14,422     16,287     14,250     15,900
                                     ========   ========   ========   ========

Net (loss) earnings per share        ($0.25)      $0.05     ($0.40)     $0.10
                                     ========   ========   ========   ========

</TABLE>
(1) See Note 1 of Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Summary and Analysis of Public Comments Received on Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 26 – Fitness for Duty Programs – Comments received between August 26, 2005 and May 10, 2007 (NUREG-1912)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1912 (PDF - 17 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 2009 **Date Published:** December 2010

**Prepared by:**Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

On August 26, 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published proposed amendments to the NRC's regulations for Fitness for Duty (FFD) programs in the *Federal Register* for public comment. The proposed amendments would have revised and updated the FFD regulations that the NRC established in 1989, and would, among other things, have required nuclear power plant licensees and other entities to strengthen the effectiveness of their FFD programs in controlling the use of substances that may affect the trustworthiness, reliability, and performance of workers and to limit worker fatigue by establishing clear and enforceable fatigue management requirements. They also would have increased consistency with other Federal rules and guidelines and with the NRC's access authorization requirements. This report provides a detailed summary of the public comments on the proposed amendments received by the NRC and provides the NRC’s resolution of the issues raised by those comments.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
No. 82-6028.

#### Greisinger *v.*Davis, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Sup. Ct. Pa. Certio-rari denied.
#### Albert M. Wentworth *vs.*William L. Gerrish.

York County.

Decided March 22, 1922.

The declaration in this cause contains two counts alleging criminal conversation with plaintiff’s wife and a third count charging defendant with alienation of the affections of plaintiff’s wife. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff and assessed damages in the sum of $7,888.33.

The case is before us on general motion for new trial, with especial attack upon the amount of the verdict.

We have examined the record carefully. That a verdict for the plaintiff is the only verdict which could be found under all the testimony is our firm conviction. But the question of damages is as much within the realm of the jury’s deciding right as the question of liability. The entire charge of the presiding Justice is made part of the report, and examination of that charge shows the law relating to both compensatory and exemplary damages to have been given with unusual clarity and completeness. No exceptions thereto were taken.

As bearing upon the question of wealth of the respondent and its effect upon the amount of exemplary damages, there is no satisfactory evidence. The defendant testified as to his business and that he had, roughly speaking, an equity in perhaps a dozen houses. *584How great that equity might be does not appear. In *Audibert*v. *Michaud,*119 Maine, 295, a case of criminal conversation and alienation of affections, where a verdict for $7,000.00 was rendered, this court sustained the verdict, saying: “It was for them (the jury) to say how much the plaintiff should recover for a stolen wife and a broken home.” It is urged by the defendant that the plaintiff’s own conduct was largely if not wholly the cause of the loss of his wife’s affections, but all these questions of fact were passed upon and decided by the jury who saw the witnesses and heard them testify. We do not feel that we should disturb their finding either upon the question of liability or amount of damages. Motion overruled.

*Franklin B. Chesley and Emery, Waterhouse & Paquin,*for plaintiff.

*John P. Peering and Willard & Ford,*for defendant.
**Exhibit
      23.2**




January
      12, 2007




El
      Capitan Precious Metals Inc.


Suite
      216


14301
      N.
      87th Street


Scottsdale,
      AZ 85260




Gentlemen:




The
      undersigned, the Managing Partner of AuRIC Metallurgical Labs, hereby consents
      to the reference to AuRIC Metallurgical Labs in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
      of El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2006 (the
      “Annual Report”), including without limitation references in Item 2 of the
      Annual Report, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
      Commission.




I
      also
      confirm that I have read each of the references to AuRIC Metallurgical Labs
      in
      the Annual Report and concur with such statements. In giving this consent,
      the
      undersigned does not admit that AuRIC Metallurgical Labs is within the category
      of persons whose consent is required by Section 7 of the Securities Act of
      1933,
      as amended, or the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
      Commission.




Sincerely,AuRIC Metallurgical Labs/s/
              Ahmet B. AltinayAhmet B. Altinay
              Its: Managing Partner
#### Opanchar, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*November 10*

December *4, 1928.*

*456For the plaintiff in error there was a brief by *Brennan, Lucas & McDonough*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Martin L. Brennan*and *G. L. McDonough..*

For the defendant in error there was a brief by the *Attorney General, Eugene Wengert,*district attorney of Milwaukee county, *A. J. Beyer,*deputy district attorney, and *C. Stanley Perry,*assistant district attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. Beyer*and *Mr. Perry.*

The following opinion was filed December 4, 1928:

Rosenberry, J.

The verdict is challenged on the ground that there is not sufficient evidence to support it, and it is discussed with reference to the four elements necessary to sustain a conviction as set forth in *Maxon v. State,*177 Wis. 379, 187 N. W. 753. We have given a bare outline of the facts. No useful purpose will be served by setting forth the evidence in detail, which supports, the verdict of the jury. Suffice it to' say that we have given the record very careful attention and are convinced that every element of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree is established by evidence from which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.

The defendant assigns erronupon the trial as grounds for reversal. We do not find it nebessary to discuss all of these. The defendant contends that he was prejudiced because the court admitted evidence as to what he did following the killing of the boy. This evidence was clearly admissible as characterizing the defendant’s attitude of mind at the time of *457the killing and was so connected with the events as to be a part of the whole transaction. It is also claimed on behalf of the defendant that he was prejudiced because a statement made by him to the district attorney and taken down in his presence and transcribed by a stenographer was taken by the jury to the jury room along with other exhibits in the case. The main facts are so fully established by the evidence in chief that any statements contained in the so-called confession taken by the jury to the jury room could have but little bearing upon the determination of the jury. If an error, it cannot in any way be prejudicial to the defendant.

We have examined all of the assignments of error and it is considered that there is abundant evidence to sustain the verdict and that no error prejudicial to the defendant was committed upon the trial.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, without costs, on February 5, 1929.