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

        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME OF
PRESIDENT CASINOS INC. FILED AS A PART OF THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                           23632
<SECURITIES>                                      2622
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2060
<ALLOWANCES>                                       396
<INVENTORY>                                       1884
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 33826
<PP&E>                                          202561
<DEPRECIATION>                                   53495
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  187256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            31510
<BONDS>                                          99120
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           302
<OTHER-SE>                                        8382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    187256
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                187535
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   184708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   870
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               16994
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15037)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15037)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15037)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.99)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2159 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2159

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs located at 400 College Drive, Middleburg, Florida, as 
the ``Andrew K. Baker Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic'', and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ANDREW K. BAKER DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The community-based outpatient clinic of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs located at 400 College Drive, 
Middleburg, Florida, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act 
be known and designated as the ``Andrew K. Baker Department of Veterans 
Affairs Clinic'' or the ``A.K. Baker VA Clinic''.
    (b) Reference.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the community-
based outpatient clinic referred to in subsection (a) shall be 
considered to be a reference to the Andrew K. Baker Department of 
Veterans Affairs Clinic.

            Passed the Senate February 3, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2159

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs located at 400 College Drive, Middleburg, Florida, as 
the ``Andrew K. Baker Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic'', and for 
                            other purposes.
```
· .. ~ .. 

REF ID:A43813 - ------------------

Dau Mmt.ral. l'roet: 

The Calbined Poltoe ~oatS.ooa hrvioe ot Viet-Nm hall 

requested. tbat the Internat1alllll. Cooperation ~tion procnn 

aa "caamoditiee" a numba ot ~c dltvtaa• tar U8e t·y that 

Service. This roquut 1• ·~1ng ref'elTed to you \mder the p!'OCCldm'u 

of COllll&C 2-/2lt J a.lthcruslt such uae or ICA t\ID4a may not be cOllld.dere4 

CClllt:U.mication aecuri ty uaiftanae .. dttttned in COt8IC 2• /24 • 

It cr~-aphic eqμS.paeat l• pl'OCNX'ed. tor t.b8 ~ ot 

v1et.-m.m, the u. a. Oper&t1au -..1ori 1n SaitJOD nu aid. it wUl 

prot.ably be of SviM maJm Ed 8UOl1 model& aa an ~ally avat.l .. 

able. Tm t.sat S&ttPl hU ~ aaked ancl been told. th&t no c\evioee 

auch .. t.be l4-209 are avaUable :trClil &urpl.Ull u. I. ud.l.11;ary QI' eaaraerei&l 80Ul"Cea. \JJaC S&1gan bu also pa1nted. out UC the Combbed 

Police Teleecctlnlni.catlcm Servtoe v.Ul probabJ.¥ undiertake to }W"OC\ll'e 

tbia ~&»biC ~ ld.tb Viet~ tunda it • 4o not procnre 

it for them. 

'tt• International. C!oopltrG1on A.dminist.rat1on baa been adviMd 

tbat United State• ~to JO.Uoy prob.tbit• ~ proviaton or 

c.cyp1»§apbie ~ tor the protectlOD ot 1nHrnal. camuntcat1ona 

ot a tareten E;OWJ111iiil9Bt. '.fbe ICA poait10D ia ~ entirely logt.cal. 

Tl.ay claim that crypt06%'spbiQ •qulpnant will not ~ ;.;e prodded. 

Vi 

HoWver, 

t.b Viat•llaa 

s1Doe 

tunda 

ve oan:ooC 

1 ICA t.hnwtOIN 

irtop tbe purchalle 

CClll 8M DO 

ot er~ 

~ tn uat.nc~ 

~ 

U • S • 

GOve.:E'nl1.len .f'unde tor the euae puz"J)088· 

YO'Ut' •uppart 1• requell'ted in thi• epecU'io matte and tor tuture 

ref"1"8110e in anawring the Q.UdU.onJ 8hOul4 the International 

Coopuation 

~ 

~1.ca l)fJ ~tt.ed to Jr08Ul'e ~c 

.. a conuo41ty tor W1e DJ' roretan ~•¥ 

Sincerel.¥ yours, 

/•/ 

L. W. Parke 

Special. .Aaa19tamt to tbe 

Aaeiataat Seant.ary t01: Adbd.n1Ar&Uon 

Copy to: mxccut1VG Secretary, mean 

Vice Adm1ral L. i.!. l"roat, U. S. llavy, 

Di.rEtctor 1 lla'tional Security Agenl:rJ, 

-Port GeQt"j:iO G. Meade 1 Maryland 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 10-10-2013 p_ursuantto E .0. 1352\3
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2126 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2126

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal Office Building located at 308 W. 21st Street 
 in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as the ``Louisa Swain Federal Office Building'', 
                         and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LOUISA SWAIN FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The Federal Office Building located at 308 W. 
21st Street in Cheyenne, Wyoming, shall be known and designated as the 
``Louisa Swain Federal Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal Office 
Building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Louisa Swain Federal Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
* Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that

have no pre cedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.”

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-10879

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL A. PACIELLA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GARY MAYES Et. al.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CV-630-H)

April 19, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This case is an appeal from a district court’s affirmance of

decree issued by a bankruptcy court. We affirm.

I

We rely on the statement of the facts of the district court’s

opinion below. We add only that Paciella’s contract was with

McAdams as an independent entity. Nothing in this contract, or in

the oral testimony in the record, supports the supposition that2

Mass Mutual owed commissions to Paciella directly. To the

contrary, the contract expressly provided that Mass Mutual will be

liable to pay commissions and other outstanding amounts directly to

Paciella only in the event that it terminated its relationship with

McAdams.

II

The district court rejected Paciella ’s appeal on estoppel

grounds, relying primarily on Kaiser v. Standard Oil Co. , 89 F.2d

58 (5th Cir. 1937). We are uncertain that this case remains good

law after United States v. Hougham

, 364 U.S. 310 (1960), especially

where, as here, the party accepting the benefit of the judgment

never manifested its intent to make such acceptance a final

settlement of all claims. We express no view on this question

because we af firm the bankruptcy judge’s equitable decree on the

merits.

Paciella’s first contention is that McAdams ’ refusal to

disburse funds in late November constituted a violation of the

bankruptcy court’s automatic stay. C itizens Bank of Maryland v.

Strumpf

, 116 S. Ct. 286 (1995), forecloses this argument. Paciella

provides us with no reason to distinguish Strumpf

.

Paciella’s second argument is that lack of mutuality prevented

operation of the doctrines of recoupment and set-off. He contends

that McAdams is merely a disbursing agent for Mass Mutual, and

therefore that Mass Mutual owes him his commissions directly. The

earlier $4500 transactions, which were designated “commission3

advances” in the receipts Paciella signed, were in fact p ersonal

loans from McAdams to Paciella.

The con tract between Paciella and McAdams stated otherwise.

Under this contract, Mass Mutual became responsible to pay Paciella

only in the event that it terminated its relationship with McAdams,

an event that never occurred.

R egarding the appellees’ motion for sanctions, we hol d that

Strumpf foreclosed only one of Paciella’s arguments on this appeal,

and therefore that Paciella did not act in bad faith.

The district court’s deci sion is AFFIRMED. The appellees’

motion for sanctions is DENIED.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 16
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 16
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 16
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 16
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 16
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 16
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 16
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 16
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 16
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 16
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 16
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-25-1999
<CASH>                                           1,838
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,544
<INVENTORY>                                     10,126
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,539
<PP&E>                                          38,284
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,966
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,067
<BONDS>                                         37,953
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           889
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,966
<SALES>                                         85,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,639
<CGS>                                           52,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,810
<INCOME-TAX>                                       742
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,068
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,068
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 17, 2022. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 17, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0346. IN THE INTEREST OF F. C. A. et al., CHILDREN (MOTHER) .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 202466 202467
REF ID:A62942 

Dr. Jamea 'fb.inney kxter, llI 

Preetc!ent 

Williue college 

'W'il l 1 a•town, llusa.chuaet.ts 

:cee.r Dr. Be.xtert 

Under date or 31 Januar;y 1955 I .-t )"Ol.l a letter 

llhich 9Y' not have rMChed. ;you and therei'ore I u en· 

elceina a. cow tbereot. 

I &lltO aa .mcloaing & couple ar clipping• wb1ch 

my be ot interest in coonect1on vi.th IQ" dea1re 'tor 

th& cor:re•pondence 1ud1cated 1n the encl~ letter. 

With cord.1al. greeti»,ga.1 t aa> 

Iccla1 

..;. 

Sincerely, 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 06-19-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
--1.Y 

REF •JiD':A67634 • 

1 .. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

PAPBR No. 

f lllSCOMM--llR•PA,_... UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

WASHINGTON 

WMHINaTON .. Q, C. 

Ser No. 

FiW 

Far 

Reapo&;.sive to aaend.mont 1'1lecl oat. 23, 1949. 

Cla!os 2 lUlci 3 a~e a.:;a1n rejected aa presenting 

no paton~able dist:nction over 6he 19'7 patent to Fr1edlaan.. 

1'bls- patent disoloaoa a ccnvontlonal curt•ent source. 

C1'7Ptosraph1c switches and rotol's 1n Fi:;ure 7 wulch 

p~ov1de a plurality of var1a~le eloctrl 

~ontacts at 171 and 331, another aw1tc 

end 

select1n~ a co~tnct such as 28 at the aeries. 

a s1znalllng device tn the £oA ..... .-..i.....&!:...!:~ 

he top 

the s13tJ.1f1cence of ta tlle s l ~1al 1nc 

use the vatcnted 

as a~~licant ~oesi he 

o~tion of the ten ~c~s 11. 

device 13. 

to 

lncapacitato sot:e of tne 

-----.----s is all that ap~licant a~pcc.ra 

respect because all plu~s and Jac!aa 

99 the prosent device 1t one 

Therefore, the selection 

of ln17 some of the contacts 1n the patent by using 

only pal't of the ava.il!1blo c.1c'Lacts 11 or t~1e awi tch 

10 would not a.mount to patonLable 1nvent1.n. In the 

absence or S1J.1 structure ieocited in the cla:.tm w1!1.oh 

1a apJcific to applics.nt• a partic.J.lo.:r apr;e.1•atus, the 

clo.1ms &l'e clearll' anticlpatod by tho li':a1ed!Jan patent. 

jil;ooroved for Release by NSA on 09-06-2013 pursuant to E.O. 1352EI 
REF\ l:D:A6763 .. 

Serial Do. 551,172 -2-

Claim 5 is rejected on tho 1937 patent to 

Priedman 1D v1ew ot the 1938 patent to Fr1ed.u&n. The 

use of a two position switch to cause cUl'ront to flo1'1 

1n separate linoa according to the pos1tlon of the 

awS.toh is auch co1DI.1.0n pract1ce as not to be considered 

1nven t1. ve. Also, such an idea Ja abo\"ID. at 11 in the 

19'8 patent and 67 1n the 1~37 patent. 

In l.1ne 7 of claim 2, the word - the --

sbou1d. appeor before 11 contacta11 • 

Claim 5 1o objected to as containing no 

antecedent b~ais tor 6 another awitchn 1n line 5 and 

for 0 sa1d rotor st.-epping devloe" 1n l!. 

Claims 2. ' and 5 Claim 

6 appears allowable. 

Rules 116 and 191•195
REF ID:A44612 

:V ~' 

2 .. ,~ .... isr.n 

MmlfWIDllC 1'0R TD SS!Dl'.ARr 07 D!7DISI 

stmJl!:CTr Jl'und...aat..ing Cmpaigna hJr th• lfat1ooal Bealt.h .A,pnciett 

liD4 the Joia' Cnau4e (U) 

Jtd'erenee 1• -4e t.o '!he SecN1iary or DettmH ICaoNn4•, 

Subjects "Pund. ... ltaletns Cape.tan- tor the National lealth Apneia 

and the Joint Crunde", dated. 7 Deceaber l96o. '!'he Jlat1onal 

Security Aemey llD4 it. N:111taey Senioe. 8up)IOl"t Jn•mte 'rill 

-participate in the Jo1nt Senicea CruMAe and. J'ederal Benice 

Copy Ji'um.iahed.: 

LAURlllCE H. F1WJ8r 

Y1ae Mai~ U8W 

Dinctor 

General G. B. l!:nUne, USIC-Rct, 

Aaat to Sec.De:t, 8p Op:la 

·•': 4 el.. 

,, . . "!: .. : 

:f.i ~ .: .• -·· 

.. . 1 ··-· .... _, 

- ' . l.. -·.: 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 10-25-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RANDY RAMOS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 432 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RANDY RAMOS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 433 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RANDY RAMOS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 434 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 435 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court
[432 EAL 2020, 433 EAL 2020, 434 EAL 2020 and 435 EAL 2020] - 2

RANDY RAMOS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
· ...... ', ('H . -: ·. v~ • .. ..,-: .... ;. :, ... 

.. .. 

- <. : ... .- :.•·.'·
# CE2004084EN.01084401.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/844 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/844

---

(2004/C 84 E/0937)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0692/04

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Invasion of privacy at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)

Subject:

According to information obtained from the Commission, it would appear that at the 10/12 December 2003 Geneva World Summit on the Information Society, badges fitted with radio-frequency microchips (RFID technology) were used in order to control access to certain restricted areas.

In its reply to question P-4002/03 (1) the Commission (in the person of Mr Liikanen, Commissioner) states that it will undertake ‘to obtain further information in order to ascertain whether (and, if so, how) RFID-based applications were used in connection with personal data transferred from the European Union, with a view to assessing the legitimacy — in the light of Community law — of the way in which the data were processed.’

1

Has the Commission pursued its investigations and, if so, what further information has it obtained concerning the use of RFID technology by the organisers of the WSIS and the Swiss Government?

Has the Commission launched a study into the legitimacy — in the light of Community law — of the way in which the WSIS organisers processed the data?

What information does the Commission hold concerning the transfer to third countries of the data gathered in the course of the WSIS, with particular reference to the fact that the second stage of the WSIS will be held in Tunisia in November 2005?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

(15 April 2004)

As announced in the response given to the Honourable Member's written question P-4002/03 on the same subject, the Commission has enquired informally with the Swiss authorities regarding the use of RFID-based technology at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS).

The Commission was informed that the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) as the supporting United Nations (UN) agency for the WSIS was responsible for the organisation of security measures at the Summit.

The Commission has therefore sent a letter on 17 March 2004 to the Secretary-General of the ITU seeking further information on whether and how RFID-based applications were used in relation to personal data transferred from the EU, in order to assess the legality of the processing under EU law, and has also asked for an appreciation of such measures under Swiss law.

No reply has been received to date.

---

(1)  See page 129.

1

---