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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE IS SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION S-K ITEM
601(C)(2). THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-K FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          37,694
<SECURITIES>                                     4,256
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,745
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,828
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,172<F1>
<PP&E>                                       5,051,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                 578,311
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,154,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          816,758<F2>
<BONDS>                                      4,058,820
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              723
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                     628,162
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,154,643
<SALES>                                        692,571
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               692,571
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  434,715
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,735
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             209,564
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                105,152
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (24)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            116,326
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (11,174)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,355
<CHANGES>                                       (4,629)
<NET-INCOME>                                   104,902
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34
<FN>
<F1>CURRENT ASSETS INCLUDE CASH, UNRESTRICTED MARKETABLE SECURITUES, CURRENT
PORTION OF ACCOUNTS AND NOTES RECEIVABLE AND PREPAID EXPENSES AND DEPOSITS.
<F2>CURRENT LIABILITIES INCLUDE THE CURRENT PORTION OF LONG-TERM DEBT AND ACCOUNTS
PAYABLE, ACCRUED EXPENSES AND OTHER LIABILITIES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

March 8, 2016

t0229 

# Order

Clerk March 8, 2016

148551 & (56)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148551

COA: 310550

Branch CC: 10

- 109467

- FC

JAMES CHARLES WILCOX,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of September 5, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the November

26, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in

People v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been

deci ded on July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered.

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part

the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Branch Circuit

Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence

under the sentencing procedure described in Lockridge . On remand, the trial court shall

follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial court determi nes

that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its

discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, however, the trial court determines

that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstit utional constraint

on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. In all other respects, leave to appeal is

DENIED because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be

reviewed by this Court. The motion to hold application in abeyance is DENIED as moot.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 September 30, 2013

s0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

147034

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147034

COA: 310385

Kent CC: 08-002691-FH

GLENN SCOTT IDALSKI,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 11, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9013]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[A-1-FRL-5801-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Vermont; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Stationary 
Sources of Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds Not Covered 
By Other Category-Specific Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State implementation plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of Vermont. This revision establishes 
and requires Reasonably Available Control Technology at major 
stationary sources of nitrogen oxides and major stationary sources of 
volatile organic compounds (VOC) which are not covered by other 
category-specific VOC regulations. In the Final Rules Section of this 
Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct 
final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no adverse 
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the 
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to 
that direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation 
to this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct 
final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA 
will not institute a second comment period on this proposal. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this proposal should do so at this 
time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, 
Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., Boston, MA 02203. 
Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by 
appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, 
MA 02203-2211 and, the Air Pollution Control Division, Agency of 
Natural Resources, Building 3 South, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, 
VT 05676.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven A. Rapp, (617) 565-2773, or 
[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct 
final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal 
Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: March 10, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator Region I.
[FR Doc. 97-9013 Filed 4-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
No. 107,752

#### In the Matter of Megan Leigh Harrington, *Respondent.*

(299 P.3d 308)

On January 11, 2013, this court suspended the respondent, Megan Leigh Harrington, from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of 2 years. See *In re Harrington,*296 Kan. 380, 293 P. 3d 686 (2013). The court provided that after the respondent has served 3 months of suspension, the remaining months will be stayed as long as respondent meets the terms and conditions during the balance of the period of suspension.

On April 16, 2013, respondent filed a motion for reinstatement. On April 22, 2013, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a response stating that the respondent has provided appropriate documentation that she is in compliance with the conditions imposed by the court and is prepared to resume the practice of law with the conditions imposed by the court.

It Is Therefore Ordered that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Kansas with the following conditions:

1. Comply with all recommendations of her Professional Treatment Services evaluation or other identified treatment provider;

2. Continue her monitoring agreement with KALAP;

3. Allow her supervising attorney to review her practice and provide written reports to the Disciplinary Administrator as requested by the Disciplinary Administrator;

4. Maintain an ignition interlock device;

5. Submit to drug and alcohol screenings when requested to do so by the Disciplinary Administrator or the proposed supervising attorney and seek additional treatment when requested by the Disciplinary Administrator or her proposed supervising attorney; and

6. Refrain from consuming alcohol or cereal malt beverages.

It Is Therefore Ordered that the respondent’s motion be granted and that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of *181law in the state of Kansas conditioned upon her compliance with the annual continuing legal education requirements and upon her payment of all fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission. When die respondent has complied with the annual continuing legal education requirements and has paid the fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission, the Clerk is directed to enter respondent’s name upon the roster of attorneys engaged in the practice of law in Kansas, subject to all above terms and conditions.

Dated this 24th day of April, 2013.

It Is Further Ordered that this order of reinstatement of Megan Leigh Harrington shall be published in the Kansas Reports and that the costs of the reinstatement proceedings are assessed to the respondent.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 64 (Thursday, April 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 15920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8531]


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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant To The Clean Water 
Act

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.7, notice 
is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United States versus 
Ronald J. Silveira, Inc. & Silveira Cranberry Corp., Civil No. 97-
10626-RCL (D. Mass.), was lodged with the United States District Court 
for the District of Massachusetts on March 20, 1997. The proposed 
decree concerns alleged violations of sections 301(a) and 404 of the 
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Secs. 1311(a) and 1344, resulting from 
unlawful excavation activities and the discharge of fill materials into 
approximately 90,000 square feet of wetlands located in Berkley, 
Massachusetts. The wetlands are located adjacent to an unnamed brook, 
which is a tributary of the Taunton River, located between Jerome 
Street and Burt Street in Berkley.
    The proposed consent decree would provide for restoration and 
mitigation of approximately 91,800 square feet of wetlands at and near 
the violation site in accordance with restoration/mitigation plans 
approved by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and payment of a 
$25,000 civil penalty.
    The U.S. Department of Justice will receive written comments 
relating to the proposed consent decree for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Comments should be 
addressed to Julie S. Schrager, Assistant United States Attorney, 
District of Massachusetts, 1003 J.W. McCormack Post Office and 
Courthouse, Boston, MA 02109, and should refer to United States versus 
Ronald J. Silveira, Inc. & Silveira Cranberry Corp., Civil No. 97-
10626-RCL (D. Mass.).
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1003 
J.W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse, Boston, Massachusetts 02109.
Letitia J. Grishaw,
Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 97-8531 Filed 4-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
No. 12-6010.

#### Bahena-Carreno *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Oct 27 2010

Mr. David Stape Regulatory Compliance Manager Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1775 Aviation Boulevard Atlanta,GA 30320

Dear Mr. Stape:

We have received your October 21, 2010, correspondence withdrawing your July 23, 2010, petition on behalf of Delta Air Lines, Inc., for an exemption from § 121.291(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

Your letter has been placed in the public docket (No. FAA-2010-0750). No further action will be taken on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division
Exhibits
**Exhibit 23.6**
**Consent of Independent PublicAccountants**We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8(No. 333-7590) of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and The“Shell” Transport and Trading Company, Public LimitedCompany of our report dated May 22, 2004 relating to theNetherlands GAAP Financial Statements of the Royal Dutch/ShellGroup of Companies which is included in this 2003 Report onForm 20-F.
**/s/ KPMG Accountants N.V.****------------------------------------------**
**KPMG Accountants N.V.****The Hague**
**/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP****------------------------------------------**
**PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP****London**
June 25, 2004 **E 8 **RoyalDutch/Shell Group of Companies
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 17, 2018. 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, April 17, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0393. CAROL SCHAFFELD v. WALTER BRITT SCHAFFELD.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 16SUCV0793
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9277]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-316-000]

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

April 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on April 1, 1997, Midwestern Gas Transmission 
Company (Midwestern), filed the original and revised tariff sheets 
listed on Appendix A to the filing, in compliance with the Order on 
Compliance issued by the Commission on January 8, 1997 in this 
proceeding requiring Midwestern to file a pooling proposal. Midwestern 
proposes an effective date of August 1, 1997 for the original and 
revised tariff sheets.
    Midwestern states that the revised tariff sheets reflect the 
changes to Midwestern's tariff required to establish a supply 
aggregation service which is consistent with the Gas Industry Standards 
Board's standards regarding pooling that were adopted by the Commission 
in Order No. 587.
    Midwestern states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with 
Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Regulations. All such 
motions or protests must be filed on or before April 21, 1997. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
this proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-9277 Filed 4-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 70 (Friday, April 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9351]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service
[T.D. 97-26]


Revocation of Customs Broker License

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Broker license revocation.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Commissioner of Customs, 
pursuant to Section 641, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 
1641), and Parts 111.51 and 111.74 of the Customs Regulations, as 
amended (19 CFR 111.51 and 111.74), canceled the following Customs 
broker license without prejudice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Port                       Individual         License No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Falls......................  Charles M. Schayer, Sr..         2167
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 8, 1997.
Philip Metzger,
Director, Trade Compliance.
[FR Doc. 97-9351 Filed 4-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
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 14, 2017

Order 

Clerk

July 14, 2017

155863(61)

JONES FAMILY TRUST,

Plaintiff-Appellant, and

SYLVIA JONES and BOBBY JONES,

Plaintiffs, SC: 155863

v COA: 329442

Saginaw CC: 13-019698-NZ

SAGINAW COUNTY LAND BANK

AUTHORITY and ROHDE BROTHERS 

EXCAVATING, INC., Defendants-Appellees,

and

CITY OF SAGINAW and HARDHAT DOE,

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time 

for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted 

on or before July 31, 2017.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                               RUDDICK CORPORATION

                              Affiliated Companies
                             as of December 18, 1997

                  Listed below are the domestic subsidiaries of the Corporation,
all of which are wholly owned and are owned directly by the Corporation, unless
otherwise indicated.

                  American & Efird, Inc.
                  The Kaim Company(1)
                  American & Efird Services, Inc.(1)
                  A&E Export, Inc.(1)
                  Harris Teeter, Inc.
                  Harris-Teeter Services, Inc.(2)
                  Ruddick of Delaware, Inc.
                  R. S. Dickson & Company
                  Ruddco Management, Inc.(3)

                  ----------
                  (1) Owned by American & Efird, Inc.
                  (2) Owned by Harris Teeter, Inc.
                  (3) Owned by R. S. Dickson & Company


                  Listed below are the foreign subsidiaries of the Corporation,
all of which are wholly owned through American & Efird, Inc., unless otherwise
indicated.

                  American & Efird (HK) Limited - 100%
                  A&E Korea Ltd. - 100%
                  American & Efird (GB) Limited - 100%
                  American & Efird Canada, Inc. - 100%
                  Hilos A&E de Costa Rica, S.A. - 100%
                  American & Efird International (FE) Limited - 100%
                  American & Efird de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. - 100%(1)
                  American & Efird Mills (S) Pte. Ltd. - 100%
                  American & Efird (Malaysia) SDN BHD - 100%
                  Hengmei Spinning Company, Ltd. - Joint venture, 60% owned
                  Hilos A&E Dominicana, Ltd. - Joint venture, 49% owned
                  Hilos A&E de Honduras, S.A. de C.V. - Joint venture, 45% owned

                  In addition, in the normal course of business, R. S. Dickson &
Company from time to time makes investments in corporations and partnerships
that may result in ownership of capital stock or other interests as an
investment.

                  (1)      In order to comply with Mexican law, one share of
                           such entity is owned of record by a person designated
                           by American & Efird, Inc.