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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from consolidated
balance sheet at December 31, 1995 and consolidated statement of income,
consolidated statement of retained earnings and consolidated statement of cash
flows and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,670,950
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         292,596
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       472,968
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  38,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,475,393
<COMMON>                                       192,266
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      495,252
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             70,330
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 757,848
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           55,000
<PREFERRED>                                     67,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           624,332
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              29,600
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                       91,900
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   18,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 831,713
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,475,393
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,016,328
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            49,267
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     794,740
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     860,955
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        155,373
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            (41,212)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 131,109
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        59,181
<NET-INCOME>                                    71,928
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      7,465
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   64,463
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        68,699
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       49,349<F1>
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         251,791
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.69
<FN>
<F1>Principal amount of bonds outstanding at December 31 multiplied by annual 
interest rates for each issue.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1108 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1108

 Expressing support for designation of the week of September 13, 2020, 
       through September 20, 2020, as ``Balance Awareness Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 14, 2020

  Ms. Johnson of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for designation of the week of September 13, 2020, 
       through September 20, 2020, as ``Balance Awareness Week''.

Whereas vestibular (inner-ear-balance) disorders are underdiagnosed and 
        undertreated;
Whereas as many as 35 percent of adults 40 years of age and older in the United 
        States, approximately 69,000,000 people in the United States, have 
        experienced some form of vestibular dysfunction;
Whereas 80 percent of people 65 years of age and older have experienced 
        dizziness;
Whereas vestibular disorder patients may consult four or more physicians and 
        spend 50 months or more in their search for a diagnosis;
Whereas the Vestibular Disorders Association celebrates ``Balance Awareness 
        Week'' to reduce the time it takes to diagnose a vestibular disorder by 
        helping patients recognize their symptoms and encouraging them to seek 
        help from a qualified vestibular specialist; and
Whereas the week of September 13, 2020, through September 20, 2020, would be an 
        appropriate week to designate as ``Balance Awareness Week'': Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of ``Balance Awareness Week''; 
        and
            (2) recognizes the importance of raising public awareness 
        about vestibular disorders.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.20

                                 TERMINATION OF
             ASSIGNMENT OF DRILLING CONTRACT REVENUES AND EARNINGS

        THIS AGREEMENT dated as of November 29, 1995, among Reading &  Bates
  (A) Pty. Ltd., a corporation organized and existing under  the laws of the
  State of  Western Australia  ("Assignor")  and Bank  One, Texas,  N.A.,  a
  national banking association, as Trustee (the "Assignee").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

        WHEREAS,  pursuant  to  that Amended  and  Restated Credit  Facility
  Agreement  dated  April  27,   1995,  as  amended  (the  "Restated  Credit
  Agreement") among the Borrowers (as defined therein)  (including Assignor)
  and Internationale Nederlanden Bank, N.V. (the "Lender") the Lender agreed
  to provide funding  to the Borrowers in the aggregate principal  amount of
  up to $65,000,000; and

        WHEREAS,  Assignor,  as  security  for  its  obligations  under  the
  Restated  Credit  Agreement, entered  into  that  Assignment  of  Drilling
  Contract Revenues and Earnings dated April 27, 1995 (as amended, from time
  to time, the "Assignment");

        WHEREAS, the Borrowers  and the Lender have agreed to  terminate the
  Restated Credit Agreement  and for Lender to release all  collateral given
  in  security  for  the   obligations  of  the  Borrowers,  including  this
  Assignment, as follows.

        NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and for  other
  good and valuable  consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of  which is
  hereby acknowledged, the Assignee, upon instructions of the Lender, agrees
  to terminate and release the Assignment, effective as of the  date hereof,
  as follows.

        1.    The Assignment is terminated, effective as of the date hereof,
              and the  Assignor is  released from  any  and all  obligations
              thereunder.

        2.    The Trustee agrees to execute and deliver to the Assignor  any
              and  all  UCC-3  Termination  Statements  for  filing  in  all
              relevant jurisdictions.   

        All capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall  have
  the meanings given to them in the Assignment.

  THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE  GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
  INTERNAL LAWS OF  THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND  MAY NOT BE AMENDED OR CHANGED
  EXCEPT BY AN INSTRUMENT IN WRITING.

        IN  WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto  have  duly executed  this
  Termination Agreement on the date first written above.

                                      READING & BATES (A) PTY. LTD.


                                      By:                            
                                            Name:                     
                                            Title:                    
               
                                      BANK ONE, TEXAS, N.A., as Trustee


                                      By:  
                                            Name:  
                                            Title:
2018 EAVS Data Brief: New Jersey EAVS Jurisdictions 

21 

 Voter Registration 

Total Registered Voters, 

Nov. 20181 

5,869,078 

1 A1a of EAVS 

Registration Forms Received, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20182 

2,241,134 

2 A3a of EAVS 

New Voters Registered, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20183 

528,963 

3 A3b of EAVS 

Sources of Registration Forms4 

4 A4a-l of EAVS 

Mail/Fax/Email 51,908 

In-Person 0 

Online 0 

Motor Vehicle Office 1,152,284 

Public Assistance 

Office 34,751 

Disability Office 5,744 

Military Recruitment 

Office 23,299 

Other Non-NVRA 

Office 836,741 

Registration Drives 0 

Other Sources or 

Not Categorized 136,407 

 Voter Turnout 

Voters Participating by Mode5 

By Mail 

406,325 

12% 

Other Mode 

84,901 

3% 

In-Person E-Day 

2,757,416 

85% 

5 In-person Election Day 

voters is F1b. By-mail voters 

is F1d+F1g. In-person early 

voters is F1f. Other mode is 

F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Total Turnout:6 3,248,642 

6 F1a of EAVS 

Provisional Voters:7 80,988 

7 F1e of EAVS 

UOCAVA Voters:8 3,913 

8 F1c of EAVS 

Election Technology 

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9 

21 21 

DRE w/o DRE with Ballot Scanner Hand Electronic 

0 0 0 0 

VVPAT VVPAT Marking Count Poll Book 

Device 



9 F3a-d, F5a-F8a, and 

F11a of EAVS 

Election Policies 

Has online voter registration10 

10 Q6 of Policy Survey 

Has a form of same-day voter registration (SDR)11 

11 Q7 of Policy Survey 

Has all-mail elections statewide12 

Has all-mail elections in certain jurisdictions12 

12 Q9a of Policy Survey 

✔ Allows voters to register as permanent absentee 

voters13 

13 Q10 of Policy Survey Requires excuse for by-mail voting14 

Requires excuse for in-person early or in-person 14 Q8 of Policy Survey 

absentee voting15 15 Q12a of Policy Survey 

Uses vote centers16 16 Q13 of Policy Survey 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at 

www.eac.gov. 

Responses of “Does not apply” and “Data not available”

are shown as zeroes.
No. 11-11056.

#### Holmes *v.*City of Shoreline, Washington.

Super. Ct. Wash., King County. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                            <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          33,681                  20,029
<SECURITIES>                                   207,427                 260,404
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,378                  30,477
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        750<F1>               8,416<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               279,596                 319,326
<PP&E>                                       1,045,217               1,378,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                 146,412<F2>             152,630<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,471,225               1,850,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,352                  23,906
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      (1,835,275)<F3>         (1,488,288)<F3>
<PREFERRED>                                    135,938<F4>             150,227<F4>
<COMMON>                                     3,154,210               3,164,210
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0               1,850,055
<SALES>                                        175,453                 120,142
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,290                 160,329
<CGS>                                           98,580                  84,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  528,277                 218,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,968<F5>                   0<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (346,987)                (57,773)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (346,987)                (57,773)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.07)                   (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)                   (.01)
<FN>
<F1> Prepaid Expense
<F2> Investment in Stocks
<F3> Accumulated Deficit
<F4> Unrealized Gain on Investment in Securities
<F5> Dry Hole Costs
</FN>



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 19, 2017

jam

Order 

Clerk

July 19, 2017

156137 (22)

TONY J. HENRY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 156137

COA: 338237

IONIA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

WARDEN, 

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $131.00, shall submit a copy of this 

order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being 

returned with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not 

being filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$244.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil 

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
<PAGE> 1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

          EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                                March 31,
(in thousands, except per share data)                   1998              1997
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                  <C>                <C>   
Basic:
-----
Average shares outstanding                             23,176             22,563
                                                     ========           ========
Net Income                                           $  9,305           $  7,929
                                                     ========           ========
Per Share Amount                                     $    .40           $    .35
                                                     ========           ========

Diluted:
-------
Average shares outstanding                             23,176             22,563

Net effect of dilutive stock options based
  on the treasury stock method using the
  average market price or quarter end price,
  whichever is greater                                  1,183                798
                                                     --------           --------
                 Total Shares Outstanding              24,359             23,361
                                                     ========           ========
Net Income                                           $  9,305           $  7,929
                                                     ========           ========
Per Share Amount                                     $    .38           $    .34
                                                     --------           --------
</TABLE>
1 From:

Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 12:26 PM

To: RedHill

Subject: leaking storage tanks Red Hill Honolulu Hawaii

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Dear EPA,

I am very concerned and disturbed about the leaking storage tanks at Red Hill in Hawaii. As a property owner

who calls Hawaii home I cannot understand how anyone could think that addressing the problem over a 20

year time period is sufficient. This type of contamination needs to be addr essed NOW and it needs to be fixed

immediately. Water sustains all life and should be the number one priority of our elected leaders and

government agencies. We have one million people who live on Oahu and they all depend on a very limited

water supply. The questions everyone involved in the decision making pro cess should ask themselves are very

simple. How much will it cost to relocate one million people? How much will it cost to ship in fresh water or

build a desalination plant for one million people? And who is going to pay for it? Will it be the Navy? The truth

is, you cannot put a price tag on the environmen t, especially fresh, clean water. The true value of water is only

realized once you do not have it anymore. Just ask any California resident who has run out of water and is

being forced to move. Ask anyone who lost their fresh water supply to fr acking chemicals that left their

property worthless because they now live in a toxic wasteland that was left behind by the oil company. What

about the coal waste chemical spill in West Virginia that left 300000 residents without clean water? The wat er

in West Virginia was so poisonous that it could not be used to wash clothes with. What plan does the federal

government, the EPA, the DOH, and the state of Hawaii have if 500000 residents have no access to usable

water? Since the Honolulu Board of water supply believes that they will not be able to guarantee the quality of

water with the way this issue is being handled, I believe that it is urgent to address this immediat ely and

demand that the federal government provide the funds and resources to do so. The environment is a fragile

ecosystem that must be preserved toda y and for future generations to come.

Sincerely,
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

179 

KA 13-01621 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN FRIELLO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, THE LAW OFFICE OF GUY

A. TALIA (GUY A. TALIA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Douglas A.

Randall, J.), rendered April 30, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated, a class

E felony, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in

the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury

verdict of, inter alia, driving while intoxicated as a class E felony

(Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [i] [A]), defendant

contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with

respect to the element of intoxication. We reject that contention. 

“Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importance to the

determination of guilt or innocence,” we must afford great deference

to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their

testimony and observe their demeanor (People v Harris, 15 AD3d 966,

967, lv denied 4 NY3d 831). It was for the jury to determine whether

to credit the testimony of the arresting officer that defendant

exhibited a number of signs of intoxication, or the testimony of

defendant’s acquaintances that he did not appear to be intoxicated

(see People v Shelton, 111 AD3d 1334, 1336, lv denied 23 NY3d 1025). 

The jury was also entitled to consider, as evidence of consciousness

of guilt, defendant’s refusal to participate in field sobriety tests

(see generally People v Berg, 92 NY2d 701, 706), or to submit to a

chemical test (see People v McGraw, 57 AD3d 1516, 1517). Thus,

viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged

to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude

that, although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable,

the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be

accorded (see People v Stevens, 109 AD3d 1204, 1205, lv denied 23 NY3d
-2- 179 

KA 13-01621 

1043; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 

Entered: February 10, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# C_2023261EN.01003501.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS)

(Case T-519/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Procedure for the revocation of decisions or the cancellation of entries - Revocation of a decision containing an obvious error attributable to EUIPO - Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No obvious error)

(2023/C 261/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht, and A.-C. Salger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: European Food SA (Păntășești, Romania) (represented by I. Speciac, lawyer)

Re:

By its action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 June 2022 (Case R 894/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 June 2022 (Case R 894/2020-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 June 2022 (Case R 894/2020-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA;

| 3. | Orders European Food SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders European Food SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 17.10.2022.

---