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

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and income statement for the Company for the nine months ended June
30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference the Company's Form 10-Q 
for the quarter ended June 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      121,221
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      3,050
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          21,089
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         1,404
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   5,928
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,692
<COMMON>                                            32
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       17,652
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             38,222
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  55,906
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            64,488
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    2,168
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  30,130
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  152,692
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       61,147
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             4,841
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      44,510
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      49,351
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         11,796
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 342
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  12,138
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       (4,143)
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,995
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    7,995
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         2,777
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        5,039<F1>
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          14,047
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.46
<FN>
<F1>Total interest on bonds represents interest expense related to long-term debt
outstanding under first mortgage bonds and long-term secured notes.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel B. Person, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 894]

Appeal from a judgment of Niagara County Court (Sperrazza, J.), entered April 27, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (11 counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of 11 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25) and one count each of scheme to defraud in the second degree (§ 190.60 [1]) and conspiracy in the fifth degree (§ 105.05 [1]). Defendant contends that evidence seized, after he was taken into custody, from the vehicle defendant had been driving should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful search. Specifically, defendant contends that the search of the vehicle did not meet constitutional standards for either an inventory search or a search incident to a lawful arrest. Because defendant failed to raise those grounds in support of his suppression motion, however, he failed to preserve those contentions for our review *(see People v Prober,*298 AD2d 966, 967 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 538 [2002]; *People v Murray,*212 AD2d 738, 739 [1995], *lv denied*85 NY2d 941 [1995]). In any event, the record establishes that defendant voluntarily consented to the search *(see generally People v Gonzalez,*39 NY2d 122, 126-128 [1976]).

Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in charging the jury that three witnesses were accomplices as a matter of law *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the court’s charge as a whole adequately conveyed the appropriate standard to the jury *(see People v Kretchmer,*181 AD2d 1043 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 833 [1992]).

We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel *(see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Finally, we conclude that the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Wisner and Gorski, JJ.
# Challenge helps put employees in shoes of others

/ Published Oct. 24, 2019
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center employees took part in a Disability Challenge Oct. 23 to observe National Disability Employment Awareness Month.

The challenge involved five stations. Each station let attendees get a small sense of what it might be like to handle daily life while also navigating a challenge involving mental health, limited mobility, deafness or being hard of hearing, blindness or low vision, and wheelchair use.

At the limited mobility station, committee members and volunteers had participants simulate a broken ankle or arm that required use of either a knee scooter or dominant arm sling. Tin cans bound behind knees helped people understand the frustration of bending down and getting around with arthritis. Cans and the knee scooter together illustrated the complex challenge that might be faced by an arthritic person with a broken foot.

At the mental health station, two people would attempt to hold a conversation while a third person spoke directly and persistently into on speaker’s ear, mimicking the plague of auditory hallucination and simulating how difficult concentration can become for those suffering from bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and severe depression.

People With Disabilities Committee Program Manager Krista Nawrocki said the idea for the challenge came from the 18-person committee, many members of which deal with their own real-life physical challenges.

“They wanted others to experience what that’s like,” Nawrocki said. “Any one of us could have a disability at any point in our life. An event like this can hopefully help us to be more conscious of other people and more aware of their daily struggles.” 

Nawrocki said DLA Disposition Services remains in line with agency guidance on the targeted employment of disabled persons, including meeting the goal of having a total workforce that includes at least 2% of those with severe disabilities.
#### Stillwater Liquidating LLC, Respondent-Appellant, v Partner Reinsurance Company, Ltd., et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[59 NYS3d 8]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered on or about January 23, 2017, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon defend*586ants’ CPLR 3211 (a) motion to dismiss the amended complaint, denied dismissal of the first and second causes of action except for the portion of the first cause of action alleging that the initial loan and pledge transaction between defendant Partner Reinsurance Company, Ltd. (Partner Re) and nonparty debtor Stillwater Funding LLC (the Partner Re loan) was a fraudulent conveyance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that the Partner Re loan was not a fraudulent conveyance, since a loan advance, regardless of the size of the collateral pledged, is “fair consideration” for the pledge (Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 274, 275; *see Chemtex, LLC v St. Anthony Enters., Inc.,*490 F Supp 2d 536 [SD NY 2007]). However, the allegations that Stillwater Funding transferred its interests in the collateral, allegedly worth over $200 million, to defendants to satisfy a debt worth less than $40 million, thereby leaving Stillwater Funding unable to pay other creditors, states a cause of action for fraudulent conveyance *(see*Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 274, 275, 278; *In re Norstan Apparel Shops, Inc.,*367 BR 68, 80 [ED NY 2007]).

The motion court correctly found that discovery was warranted as to whether the foreclosure and sale agreement between Stillwater Funding, defendants, and others constituted a valid strict foreclosure under the Uniform Commercial Code *{see*UCC 9-620), and whether the agreement was made in “good faith” (UCC 9-620, Comment 11).

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
2017-1094.

#### Bey v. McHale.

In Mandamus. Reported at 151 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2017-Ohio-8842, 87 N.E.3d 218. On third amended motion for reconsideration. Motion denied. On amended motion to set aside judgment. Motion denied. On amended motion in error. Motion denied. On motion for jury trial. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

AmeriPath, Inc. 

and its 

Subsidiaries and Affiliates 

 

A. Bernard Ackerman, M.D., Dermatopathology, P.C. 

AmeriPath 5.01(a) Corporation 

AmeriPath Associates, LLC 

AmeriPath Cincinnati, Inc. 

AmeriPath Cleveland, Inc. 

AmeriPath Consolidated Labs, Inc. 

AmeriPathConsulting Pathology Services, P.A. 

AmeriPath Florida, LLC 

AmeriPath Indemnity, Ltd. 

AmeriPath Indiana, LLC 

AmeriPath Indianapolis, P.C. 

AmeriPath Kentucky, Inc. 

AmeriPath Lubbock 5.01(a) Corporation 

AmeriPath Marketing USA, Inc. 

AmeriPath Michigan, Inc. 

AmeriPath Milwaukee, S.C. 

AmeriPath Mississippi, Inc. 

AmeriPath New England, Inc. 

AmeriPath NewYork, LLC 

AmeriPath North Carolina, Inc. 

AmeriPath Ohio, Inc. 

AmeriPath PAT 5.01(a) Corporation 

AmeriPath Pennsylvania, LLC 

AmeriPath Philadelphia, Inc. 

AmeriPath Pittsburgh, P.C. 

AmeriPath SanAntonio 5.01(a) Corporation 

AmeriPath SC, Inc. 

AmeriPath Severance 5.01(a) Corporation 

AmeriPath Texas, LP 

AmeriPath Youngstown Labs, Inc. 

AmeriPathYoungstown, Inc. 

AmeriPath LLC 

AmeriPath Wisconsin LLC 

Anatomic Pathology Services, Inc. 

API No. 2., LLC 

Arizona Pathology Group, Inc. 

Arlington Pathlogy Association 5.01(a) Corporation 

Colorado Diagnostic Laboratory, LLC 

Colorado Pathology Consultants, P.C. 

Columbus Pathology Associates 

Consulting Pathologists of Pennsylvania, P.C. 

CPA I, Inc. 

CPA II, Inc. 

Dermatopathology of Wisconsin, S.C. 

Dermapathology Services, Inc. 

DFW 5.01(a) Corporation 

Diagnostic Pathology Management Services, LLC 

Diagnostic Pathology Services, P.C. 

Institute for Dermatopathology, P.C. 

AmeriPathInstitute of Urological Pathology, P.C. 

Jeffrey R. Light, M.D., Inc. 

Kailash B. Sharma, M.D., Inc. 

Kilpatrick Pathology, P.A. 

NAPA 5.01(a) Corporation 

Nuclear Medicine and Pathology Associates 

Ocmulgee Medical Pathology Association, Inc. 

O’Quinn Medical PathologyAssociation, LLC 

Palms of Pasadena Pathology, Inc. 

PCA of Columbus, Inc. 

PCA of Denver, Inc. 

PCA of Los Gatos, Inc. 

PCA of Memphis, Inc. 

PCA of Nashville, Inc. 

PCA Southeast II, Inc.

Peter G. Klacsmann, M.D., Inc. 

Regional Pathology Consultants, LLC 

Rocky Mountain Pathology Consultants, L.L.C. 

Saint Luke’s Pathology Associates, P.A. 

Sharon G. Daspit, M.D., Inc. 

Shoals Pathology Associates, Inc. 

Simpson Pathology 5.01(a) Corporation 

Southwest Diagnostic Laboratories, P.C.

Strigen, Inc. 

TID AcquisitionCorp. 

Tulsa Diagnostics, P.C. 

TXAR 5.01(a) Corporation
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph D. Robertson, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 645]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered October 19, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The decision to permit the withdrawal of a plea of guilty is directed to the sound discretion of the court *(see*CPL 220.60 [3]; *People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520 [1978]). The County Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. The minutes of the plea proceeding show that the defendant entered a knowing and voluntary plea and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the plea was improvident or baseless *(see People v Polite,*259 AD2d 566 [1999]). The record of the plea proceeding, in which the defendant expressly stated under oath that he was not coerced or threatened into pleading guilty, belies his claim of coercion *(see People v Murray,*245 AD2d 531 [1997]; *People v Breeden,*221 AD2d 352 [1995]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Pamela M. Witters, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pierre Foods,Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; d. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and e. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: July 20, 2004      /S/ PAMELA M. WITTERS
# DLA Energy achieves 99% of CFC goal

/ Published Feb. 2, 2021

Employees came together to help Defense Logistics Agency Energy reach 99% of its 2020 Combined Federal Campaign goal. 

DLA Energy’s efforts help DLA as a whole exceed its CFC goal of $260,000 by 16 percent. The final tally for DLA contributions in the CFC National Capitol Area came to $301,357.

“DLA Energy gave generously,” said Mike Hughes, DLA Energy CFC Coordinator. “Many of our employees gave 2% or 1% of their yearly pay.”  

When asked why he think employees gave so much, Hughes explained people had favorite charities that they annually donate. Hughes, a DLA Energy Strategic Policy & Programs Directorate employee, volunteered to be this year’s CFC Coordinator. 

“I wanted to make a difference and this position gave me that opportunity to support our 25 keyworkers with the CFC campaign,” he said.

This year’s CFC campaign had to do things a bit differently due to unprecedented change to the workplace, full-time telework.

“Staying in communication with the workforce and using the online tools that the CFC provided was the key,” Hughes said. “I also encouraged the keyworkers to send out weekly Cause of the Week messages to raise awareness on how giving was important for people and charities in need.”

DLA Energy Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Jimmy Canlas applauded the efforts of the Energy CFC team.

“Great job by Mike and his team,” Canlas said. “I applaud the generosity and giving spirit of Energy employees who strive to make the world a better place with their contributions.”

DLA Energy CFC team members included representatives from every directorate. They are Rolanda Austin, Jim Fetzner, Dan Poole, Raysa Donaldson, Army Capt. Jerry Bortner, Nikki Waggoner, Pam King, Chris Reed, Mark Davis, Samuel Rhodes, Pam Griffith, Scott Taetsch, Elizabeth Harris, Myrtha Glaude, Jose Duran, Tim Nicholls, Nikki Johnson, Jason Searls, Marshall Kennedy, Lance Gidden, Rod Cajulis, Michelle Herrera, Catherine Draper, Monyka Ruiz, Christine Bond Jawish, and Alicia Slade.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MONARCH
CEMENT COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,591,589
<SECURITIES>                                13,142,077
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,599,728
<ALLOWANCES>                                   523,000
<INVENTORY>                                 12,194,701
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,607,245
<PP&E>                                      98,180,868
<DEPRECIATION>                              72,723,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,829,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,612,513
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,539,285
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,678,462
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,829,914
<SALES>                                     41,414,537
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,414,537
<CGS>                                       33,559,520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,559,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,701,560
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,700,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,001,560
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,001,560
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the periodic report of Asia Pacific Wire & Cable Corporation Limited (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 20-F for the two-year period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Yuan Chun Tang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                      
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, ‘‘filed’’ with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: March 17, 2008


/s/ Yuan Chun TangYuan Chun Tang
Chief Executive Officer


---
2017-1701.

#### State v. Cupp.

Geauga App. No. 2016-G-0097, 2017-Ohio-7948. On review of an order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are ordered to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ entry filed December 1, 2017: “Whether a defendant is entitled to jail credit for presentence detention time when held on a bond if, during the same period of time, he is serving a sentence on an unrelated case.”

The conflict cases are *State v. Washington,*1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-050462 and B-0500722, 2006-Ohio-4790, *State v. Brooks,*9th Dist. Lorain No. 05CA008786, 2006-0hio-1485, and *State v. Smith,*71 Ohio App.3d 302, 593 N.E.2d 402 (10th Dist.1992).

The clerk shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for Geauga County.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2017-1547, *State v. Cupp,*and briefing in Nos. 2017-1701 and 2017-1547 shall be consolidated. The parties shall file two originals of each of the briefs permitted under S.Ct.Prae.R. 16.02 through 16.04 and include both case numbers on the cover page of the briefs. The parties shall otherwise comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prae.R. 16.01 through 16.04.

French and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105
- 2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION **July 18**  **, 20 13**  MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with Honda regarding Tier 3 FROM: Michael Olechiw TO: EPA Docket # EPA

- HQ
- OAR
- 2011
- 0135 This me mo documents a meeting held on July 18 , 201 3 between representatives of Honda Motor Company an d EPA to discuss Tier 3. The agenda as well as the attendees are shown below. Th e purpose of the meeting was to clarify points in the Tier 3 rule

. Attendees: Jim Kliesh Honda Michael Olechiw EPA Tony Fernandez EPA Tad Wy sor Agenda Tier 3 Credits
No. 09-1271.

#### Ronald E. Byers, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

562 U.S. 829, 131 S. Ct. 79,

178 L. Ed. 2d 26,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6230.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 351 Fed. Appx. 161.