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


<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           24,108
<SECURITIES>                                    189,158
<RECEIVABLES>                                   728,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                     11,821
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                           35,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                   11,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,155,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                         232,059
<COMMON>                                            293
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                      20,056
<OTHER-SE>                                       40,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  1,155,568
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                118,510
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    83,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  4,221
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               14,189
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  16,347
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5,588
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              10,759
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     10,660
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    60,085.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    60,085.00
        


</TABLE>
No. 12-8641.

#### Deleo *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# Historical F-35 global transportation and distribution planning meeting kicks off at DLA Distribution HQs

/ Published Feb. 4, 2019
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
 The Department of Defense recently assigned F-35 global transportation and distribution and North American regional warehousing to the Defense Logistics Agency and U.S. Transportation Command. 

The DLA Distribution team along with more than 50 attendees from the Joint Program Office Product Support Manager and Hybrid Product Support Integrator, USTRANSCOM and DLA headquarters, participated in the session.  

The team established five working groups to support the Product Support Programs focused on warehouse and transportation laydown, finance/contracting, information technology, and global asset management. 

The working groups established a weekly battle rhythm, with the next full group face-to-face meeting scheduled in Fort Worth, Texas the first week of March.
# FILED
December 10, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE MAY SESSION, 1997
KEITH SCA RBROUGH, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9607-CC-00322 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) CHEATHAM COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. ROBE RT E. BURCH. J UDGE STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee. ) (Post Convi ction - Sentencing)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : KeithScarbr

ough ProSe John Knox Walkup R.M.S .I. Attorney Generaland Reporter 7475CockrillBend-Industrial Rd. Nashvill e, TN 37209-1010 Peter M. Coughlan Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashvill e, TN 37243 Dan Alsobrooks Distri ct Attorney General James W. Kirby Assistant Distri ct Attorney 105 Sycamore Street Ashland City, TN 37015
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20 JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE-2- 

## OPINION In this appe al of the su mmary dismissal of his post- convicti on petiti on Appe llant, Ke ith S carbro ugh, a sks this Cour t to revie w the va lidity of his convicti on entered upon hi s pleas of gui lty onFebur ary 27, 1986. Appell ant pled guilty to armed robbery , grand larceny, an d seco nd deg ree burg lary. As part of the plea a greem ent App ellant rece ived sen tences totaling11 years.
Although acknowledgi ng his po st-convictio n petiti on was time-barr ed unde r the three yea r statute of l imitati on s in effe ct whe n his co nviction beca me fin al, Appellant

argues that t he ena ctm ent on May 10, 1995, of the new one year statute of li mitations

for post- convicti on petiti ons creates a new one year period in which he may fi le for post-convi ction rel ief. Our State Supreme Court hasonly
recen tly resolved t his issue ad v ersely to A ppellant’s position. Carter v. S tate , Monroe Co., No. 03- S-01-9612-CR-00117 (Tenn. S. Ct. September 8, 1997, at Knoxvill e). Thus the pet ition f or post-conv ictionrelief was properly

dismissed.
According ly, the judgm ent of th e trial court is affirm ed in all resp ects pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

____________________________________ JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE-3-

CONCUR:

___________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE
No. 12-8751.

#### Simpson, aka Pillings, aka Floyd *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 0602 Directorate ID : 2009 - SW - 061 - AD Helicopter Model: Schweizer Aircraft Corporation/Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model 269D and Model 269D Configuration A Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 18 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent separation of the horizontal stabilizer from the helicopter and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Part s per Helicopter $ 150 for the inspection panel installation $38,000 for repairs for structural damage $120 to repair crack(s) Labor per Helicopter ( 0.15 hour x $ 8 5 /work- hour per daily visual inspection ) (2 hours x $85/work - hour per internal inspection) (16 hours x $85/work- hour for inspection panel installation) (24 hours x $85/work- hour for repairs for structural damage ) (24 hours x $85/work- hour to repair crack(s) ) (10 hours x $85/work- hour to repair skin interference) $ 9 $170 $1,360 $2,040 $2,040 $850 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 4,985 per year for inspections, assuming 365 daily inspections per year and 10 internal inspections per year. $1,510 for the inspection panel installation. Total US Fleet Cost $ Executive O rder 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act :2

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : 

### Stephen Kowalski
No. 12-7306.

#### Vasquez *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7972.

#### Pingel *v.*Arizona et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S SEPT. 30, 1996 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
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-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             200
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  765,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (38,900)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               747,100
<PP&E>                                       7,985,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,933,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,118,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          742,100
<BONDS>                                      1,094,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,721,800
<OTHER-SE>                                   (336,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,118,400
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,405,000
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,674,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (7,500)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                54,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                674,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                   234,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            439,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   439,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>SECURITIES ARE NOT MATERIAL AND THEREFORE HAVE NOT BEEN STATED SEPARATELY
IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS AMOUNT IS INCLUDED IN THE CASH TAG.
<F2>NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
REVENUES AND THEREFORE HAS NOT BEEN STATED SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B). THIS AMOUNT IS
INCLUDED IN THE "TOTAL REVENUES" TAG.
<F3>COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IS INCLUDED IN COST OF SERVICE AND PRODUCTS
IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PURSUANT TO REGULATION
S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM

From: Office of Air Qual ity Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

To: EGU NSPS Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044)

Date: December, 2011

Subject: Track Changes with Comment Balloons of the Amendments to the Boiler NSPS (40 CFR Part 60, Section 60.17 and Subparts B, D, Da, Db, & Dc).

Introduction

For references purposes, EPA prepared track cha nges documents of the amendments against the existing regulatory text. The tr ack changes documents are only in tended to assist interested parties to understand the amendments. The track changes documents and are not intended to supersede the amendments included in the FR package.
EX-10.7



 Exhibit 10.7 
 ADDENDUM 
 This Addendum, dated May 22, 2006, by
and between Universal Insurance Holdings, Incorporated (hereinafter the “Company”), and Sean Downes (“Employee”), modifies and amends the existing employment agreement (“Agreement”) and any prior Addenda thereto
(“Prior Addenda”) between the Company and the Employee, only in respect of the matters set forth herein, and otherwise the Agreement and Prior Addenda remain in full force and effect as if this Addendum had not been
executed: 
 I. In respect of “Article 6.” of the Agreement entitled “Compensation,” the Employee’s
Base Compensation shall be increased by $150,000.00 per annum effective May 1, 2006. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum
has been signed and executed as of the first date written above. 
  

			
	UNIVERSAL INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	 /s/ James M. Lynch

		 	James M. Lynch
	
	 /s/ Sean Downes

	SEAN DOWNES - Employee
No. 12-7803.

#### Johnson *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1907 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1907

   To require that the Department of Veterans Affairs adjudicate and 
 resolve certain claims relating to medical malpractice in the health 
               care services provided by the Department.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             March 8, (legislative day, February 22), 1994

 Mr. Rockefeller (for himself, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Daschle) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                          on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require that the Department of Veterans Affairs adjudicate and 
 resolve certain claims relating to medical malpractice in the health 
               care services provided by the Department.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUDICATION AND RESOLUTION OF CERTAIN CLAIMS RELATING TO 
              MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.

    (a) Adjudication and Resolution of Claims.--The Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs shall--
            (1) take appropriate actions to determine whether the 
        injury (or aggravation of an injury) of any veteran as the 
        result of the treatment of the veteran was the result of 
        medical malpractice on the part of the Department of Veterans 
        Affairs (and not of the veteran's own willful misconduct); and
            (2) in the case of any injury so determined, provide 
        appropriate compensation to the veteran in accordance with 
        section 1151 of title 38, United States Code.
    (b) Statement of Intent and Construction.--Congress enacts the 
requirement set forth in subsection (a) in order to ensure the 
adjudication and resolution of certain claims following the decision in 
Gardner v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 584 (1991), aff'd, sub nom. Gardner v. 
Brown, 5 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The requirement may not be 
construed as an expression of Congressional intent to limit the claims 
subject to adjudication under section 1151 of title 38, United States 
Code, to claims related to injuries resulting from medical malpractice.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) The term ``treatment'', in the case of a veteran, means 
        any examination, hospitalization, medical or surgical 
        treatment, or course of vocational rehabilitation under chapter 
        31 of title 38, United States Code, that is provided to the 
        veteran by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
            (2) The term ``medical malpractice'' means any 
        carelessness, negligence, error in judgment, lack of proper 
        medical skill, or similar instance of indicated fault in the 
        treatment of a veteran.

                                 <all>
```
#### Justin Giordano, Respondent, v Bernardo R. Ramos et al., Appellants.

[768 NYS2d 628]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated January 13, 2003, which denied *677their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Through the affirmations of their medical experts, the plaintiffs EBT testimony, and the records of the plaintiffs treating physicians, the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affirmation of the plaintiffs expert, who first examined the plaintiff after the defendants moved for summary judgment, was based upon subjective complaints of pain and speculation. Thus, it was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Trotter v Hart,*285 AD2d 772 [2001]; *Cabri v Myung-Soo Park, 260*AD2d 525 [1999]; *Williams v Ciaramella,*250 AD2d 763 [1998]; *Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assoc.,*239 AD2d 394 [1997]; *Waldman v Dong Kook Chang,*175 AD2d 204 [1991]).

Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
August 28 , 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

OSAIGBOVA NEHIKHARE , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00270

- CV V.

CREEKSIDE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on March 20, 2015. Having consid ered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Osaigbova Nehikhare.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDING
JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             164
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      495
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         99
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   899
<PP&E>                                           2,416
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,306
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            54
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,405
<SALES>                                          1,550
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,550
<CGS>                                            1,333
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  32
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     35
<INCOME-TAX>                                        15
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 20
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        20
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-7654.

#### S. W. *v.*Florida Department of Children and Families.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Singapore (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Singapore (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | W      | W      | --     | 7.02   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-7075.

#### Howard *v.*Howard et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 12-7496.

#### Locke *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.