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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          50,672
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,655,030
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,002,937
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      40
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,525,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,124,141
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,119
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,525,258
<SALES>                                      1,603,854
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               546,393
<CGS>                                        1,057,461
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,598,970
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (50,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (50,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,102,577)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 142 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 142

Authorizing the use of the Capitol rotunda for the Senate Thanksgiving 
                              Celebration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 3, 1997

 Mr. Christensen submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 
            was referred to the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of the Capitol rotunda for the Senate Thanksgiving 
                              Celebration.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used from 11 a.m. 
until noon on November 13, 1997, for the Senate Thanksgiving 
Celebration. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried 
out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol 
may prescribe.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMO
SENTRON INC.'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 4, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                12,225
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                         25,888
<ALLOWANCES>                           2,198
<INVENTORY>                           18,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      56,986
<PP&E>                                 6,121
<DEPRECIATION>                         2,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       139,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 51,379
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                  99
<OTHER-SE>                            87,685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         139,803
<SALES>                               40,558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      40,558
<CGS>                                 24,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         24,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       1,006
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          77
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        5,093
<INCOME-TAX>                           1,968
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    3,125
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           3,125
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.32
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-8334.

#### Myers *v.*Thomas, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Jules Francois Parisien, M.D., as Assignee of Quintana Dixon, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Citiwide Auto Leasing, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Miller, Leiby &amp; Associates, P.C. (Melissa M. Wolin, Esq.), for appellant.The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered June 5, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs), and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant's motion.</p><p>The Civil Court erroneously held that, because defendant had failed to establish that it had scheduled the examinations at a time that was reasonably convenient for the assignor, there is an issue of fact as to the reasonableness of the IME requests. The no-fault regulations provide that an eligible injured person "shall submit" to IMEs "when, and as often as, the Company may reasonably require" (11 NYCRR 65-1.1), as an assignor's appearance for a duly scheduled IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the policy. As plaintiff never alleged, let alone demonstrated, that he or his assignor had responded in any way to the IME requests, plaintiff's objections to the reasonableness of the requests should not have been heard (<i>see Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 262 AD2d 553 [1999]; <a href="../2015/2015_51419.htm" target="_blank"><i>Metro Health Prods., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.</i>, 49 Misc 3d 130</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51459[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>Solomon, J.P., Pesce and Elliot, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: May 19, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
TERMINATION OF SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

         This Termination of Severance  Agreement (the "Termination  Agreement")
is made  and  entered  into on this __ day of July,  2000,  by and  between  PLM
Financial  Services,  Inc. ("FSI") and Stephen M. Bess ("Employee"),  who hereby
state as follows:

         Whereas,  Employee  and  FSI are  parties  to  that  certain  Severance
Agreement  (the "FSI  Severance  Agreement")  dated  December 2, 1996,  attached
hereto as Exhibit 1;

         Whereas,  concurrently  with entering into this Termination  Agreement,
Employee is entering into a Severance Agreement (the "PLM Severance  Agreement")
with PLM  International,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  the 100% owner of FSI,  which
provides  for  severance  pay  and  benefits  to  Employee  under  circumstances
described in the PLM  Severance  Agreement in the event  Employee is  terminated
from the Company;

         Whereas,  because  Employee  and the  Company  have  agreed  to and are
entering into the PLM Severance Agreement, Employee and FSI have agreed to enter
into this Termination Agreement.

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the above premises and of other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, FSI and Employee agree as follows:

         1. Termination of FSI Severance Agreement.  The FSI Severance Agreement
is hereby terminated, and neither Employee nor FSI shall have any further rights
or obligations thereunder.

         2. The Company is  expressly  intended  by the  parties  hereto to be a
beneficiary of this Termination Agreement.

         3.  This   Termination   Agreement   contains  the  full  and  complete
understanding  of the parties  regarding the subject matter contained herein and
supersedes  all prior  representations,  promises,  agreements  and  warranties,
whether oral or written.

         4. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted according to the
laws of the state of California.


<PAGE>



         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties have executed this document as of the
date specified above.

PLM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.                EMPLOYEE



By:                                          /s/ Stephen M. Bess
Its:                                        Stephen M. Bess

ATTEST:                                     ATTEST:


Acknowledged:

PLM INTERNATIONAL, INC.



By:
Its:

ATTEST:
No. 11-10126.

#### Evans *v.*Phelps, Warden, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 168 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 168

  Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States Postal 
     Service should maintain the Postal Uniform Allowance Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 1997

     Mr. Strickland (for himself, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Rush, Mr. Fox of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. 
 McNulty, Mr. Holden, Mr. Mascara, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. 
  Murtha, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and Mr. Ackerman) submitted the 
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States Postal 
     Service should maintain the Postal Uniform Allowance Program.

Whereas the United States Postal Service has successfully supplied uniforms to 
        its employees for 42 years under the Postal Uniform Allowance Program;
Whereas the Postal Uniform Allowance Program currently provides business to more 
        than 1,000 American companies throughout the United States which, in 
        turn, employ more than 10,000 American workers;
Whereas the United States Postal Service has proposed a new, centralized uniform 
        procurement system that would result in substantial loss of business to 
        those American companies and turn over control of the procurement system 
        to a single vendor; and
Whereas the United States Postal Service has, in recent years, become more 
        profitable while continuing to use the Postal Uniform Allowance Program: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the United States Postal 
Service should maintain its current Postal Uniform Allowance Program 
and make necessary changes to improve that program, rather than 
implement a centralized, single-vendor program.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-11-1999
<CASH>                                           4,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,339
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,881
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,096
<PP&E>                                         121,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 366,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,429
<BONDS>                                        125,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           341
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   366,123
<SALES>                                        199,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               199,649
<CGS>                                           66,008
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  176,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,360)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,340)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,435)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)


</TABLE>
. ~~18~el r,. 4tY,,---/~-

iIlie"~ Mississippi

I '). .

Johnny Magee

Mayor

June 16,2014

Dennis J. DeVany, Chief

Essential Air Service Division, X-53

Office of Aviation Analysis

Department of Transportation

8

th Floor, Room W86-472

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.B.

Washington, DC 20590

RE: EAS Order 2014-4-24

Dear Mr. DeVany:

The City of Laurel is in receipt of the proposals from AeroDynamics, Inc., Express Jet Airlines

an~ Sun Air International, to provide essential air service to the citizens ofthil Hattiesburg

regIon. .

After careful and considerate review, the City of Laurel selects the Express Jdt proposal to

provide air service to our community. We believe this proposal, with 50-passenger jet service to

DallaslFt. Worth, affords our travelers with better service and more travel connections. It is this

type of service that will allow our community to grow and prosper.

This letter represents the views of the community as a whole, and no other entities representing

the community will be submitting comments. We thank you for your efforts in assisting our

corrununity to secure air service.

Sincerely,

JM:cbt

. I

cc: Michael Fl. Martin at michael.f.martin@dot.gov

I

I

P. O. Box 647 / Laurel, MS 39441/ Phone (601) 428-6401 / Fax (601) 428.6403
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                (in thousands)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                        
                                                                         Quarter Ended                    Three Quarters Ended      
                                                              ---------------------------------    ---------------------------------
                                                                 October 6,        October 5,        October 6,        October 5,   
                                                                    1996              1997              1996              1997      
                                                              ----------------  ---------------    ----------------  ---------------
<S>                                                           <C>               <C>                <C>               <C>            
Primary earnings per share:

Weighted average number of shares outstanding.....                   27,742            33,266            17,068            32,928 
Incremental shares pursuant to Staff Accounting
  Bulletin No. 83..................................                   2,635                 -             2,157                 -
Dilutive effect of common stock options and
  warrants..........................................                      -             1,312                 -             1,848
Adjusted primary weighted average number of                   ----------------  ---------------    ----------------  ---------------
  common and equivalent shares outstanding.........                  30,377            34,578            19,225            34,776
                                                              ================  ===============    ================  ===============
Fully diluted earnings per share:
Weighted average number of shares outstanding.....                   27,742            33,266            17,068            32,928
Incremental shares pursuant to Staff Accounting
  Bulletin No. 83..................................                   2,863                 -             2,225                 -
Dilutive effect of common stock options and
  warrants..........................................                      -             1,312                 -             1,848
                                                              ----------------  ---------------    ----------------  ---------------
Adjusted fully diluted weighted average number
  of common and equivalent shares outstanding......                  30,605            34,578            19,293            34,776
                                                              ================  ===============    ================  ===============

</TABLE>
#### Daniel W. FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105723 (consolidated with ED 105726)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: November 21, 2017

Rehearing Denied January 3, 2018

Daniel W. Foster, E.R.D.C.C., #530988, 2727 Highway K, Bonne Terre, MO. 63628, pro se.

Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is a consolidated appeal. Daniel W. Foster (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment denying his motions to reopen two separate but related post-conviction proceedings, both stemming from his 1996 convictions. Movant argues the motion court erred in the 2017 judgment by denying his motions to vacate and set aside the 1996 and 1997 judgments in his post-conviction proceedings because the judgments were not final under Rule 74.01(b)1 in that 1996 and 1997 judgments failed to adjudicate all of the claims raised in Movant’s *360Rule 29.15 motions for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b) (Mo. Sup. Ct. Rules 2017).

1

. All rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (1996), the version of the Rules in effect at the time Movant was sentenced, unless otherwise indicated.
** **

**Exhibit34.2**

** **

**Reportof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Boardof Directors

Citibank,N.A.:

 

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion of Compliance, that the Agency and Trust division of Citibank,N.A. (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued (*i.e.*, transaction-level reporting initially required under the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities serviced by American Honda Finance Corporation issuedon or after January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services; or owner trustee services (the“Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii)-1122(d)(2)(vii),1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performswith respect to the Platform, as of and for the twelve months ended March 31, 2015. With respect to the Platform, servicingcriterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliancewith the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’scompliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordancewith the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, includedexamining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performingsuch other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactionsand securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company duringthe period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either priorto or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the periodcovered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicingcriteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertionthat the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the twelve months ended March 31, 2015is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

Chicago, Illinois

May 29, 2015