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

<ARTICLE>                  5

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               172,793
<SECURITIES>                                         403,235
<RECEIVABLES>                                        1,352,695<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         000
<INVENTORY>                                          000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     000
<PP&E>                                               000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       15,426,960<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                000
<BONDS>                                              000
<COMMON>                                             000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                000
<PREFERRED>                                          000
<OTHER-SE>                                           12,230,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         15,426,960<F4>
<SALES>                                              000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     212,778<F5>
<CGS>                                                000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     3,535,159<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      000
<CHANGES>                                            000
<NET-INCOME>                                        (6,671,150)<F7>
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (66.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        000
<FN>
<F1>Included in Receivables: Interest receivable of $7,350 and Note receivable
of $1,345,345 <F2>Included in Total Assets: Investments in Local Limited
Partnerships of $13,498,237<F4>Included in Total Liabilities and Equity:Accounts
 payable to affiliates of $2,371,098,  Accounts payable and accrued expenses of
$310,379 and Note payable, affiliate of $514,968  <F5>Included in Total Revenue:
Investment  of $36,967, recovery  of bad debt of $27,002  and Other of  $148,809
<F6>Included in Other Expenses: Asset management fees of $382,512,  General and
 administrative  of $365,743,  Provision for valuation of investments in Local
Limited  Partnerships of $2,661,103 and Amortization of $125,801 <F7>Included in
 Net Loss:  Equity in losses of Local Limited  Partnerships  of $2,556,821  and
loss on liquidation of interests in Local Limited Partnerships of $785,948
</FN>
</TABLE>
In the MATTER OF the Care and Treatment of: W.H., a/k/a W.G.H., Appellant.

No. ED 104254-01

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

FILED: December 19, 2017 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 26, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied May 1, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Chelsea R. Mitchell, 1000 W Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Colombia, Missouri 65203.

FOR RESPONDENT: Shaun J. Mackelprang, Gregory M. Goodwin-( co-counsel), P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa Van Amburg, J.

*263*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

W.H. appeals the trial court's judgment, after a jury trial, committing him to the custody of the Department of Mental Health (DMH) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
No. 09-8381.

#### Michael Lynn Bradden, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

559 U.S. 1117, 130 S. Ct. 2431,

176 L. Ed. 2d 944,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3711.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 994, 130 S. Ct. 1743, 176 L. Ed. 2d 217, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2317.
August 25, 2015 Memorandum Subject: August 18,2015 Teleconference Betweenthe SouthernUte Tribe and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) From: Chris Stoneman, Policy Advisor



## (~ **~** Outreach and Information Division, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) To: Docket- EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606 This memorandum to docket provides a briefsummary ofthe main discussion points made at the subject meeting concerning the proposed rulemaking: "Review ofNew Sources and Modifications in Indian Country: Federal Implementation Plan for Managing Air Emissions from True Minor Sources Engaged in Oil andNatural Gas Production in Indian Country." Teleconference details: When: August 18, 2015 Participants: Chris Stoneman, EPA OAQPS Southern Ute Tribe: Mark Hutson, Air Quality Technical Manager Danny Powers, Air Quality During the teleconference, EPA provided an overview ofseveral key aspects ofthe recently-signed proposed rule for New Source Reviewminor source oil and natural gas activity in Indian country. During the course ofthe meeting the Southern Ute raised concerns as follows that were discussed between both parties on the phone:

• Whetherthe proposed Federal Implementation Plan will be protective ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), particularly the nitrogen dioxide NAAQS; and • WhetherEPA analyzed through air quality modeling the impacts ofnitrogen oxides sources inthe oil and natural gas sector (e.g., engines) on the nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. The EPA answered basic questions about the content ofthe proposed rule and offeredto be available for further discussions ifthe Southern Ute desires. This memorandum will be filed inthe docket for the proposedrule and will be available for public review.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27194-27195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10988]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2013-OS-0095]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete a System of Records.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Finance and Accounting Service is deleting a 
system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems 
subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective on June 10, 2013 unless 
comments are received which result in a contrary determination. 
Comments will be accepted on or before June 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark 
Center Drive, East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-
3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, 
including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Outlaw, (317)510-4591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 
552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are 
available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The 
proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the 
Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the 
submission of a new or altered system report.

[[Page 27195]]

    Dated: May 2, 2013.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate DoD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

Deletion:
T7340a

System name:
    Battle Injured/Non-Battle Injured Pay Account Management System 
(March 21, 2006, 71 FR 14186).

Reason:
    The system was merged with T7340, Defense Joint Military Pay 
System-Active Component (March 5, 2013, 78 FR 14283); therefore, 
T7340a, Battle Injured/Non-Battle Injured Pay Account Management System 
can be deleted.

[FR Doc. 2013-10988 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

# AGENCY:

Office of the United States Trade Representative. 

# ACTION:

Notice; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The United States Trade Representative (USTR) published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 4, 2006, concerning a determination under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in respect of Burkina Faso. The document did not expressly include a modification to list Burkina Faso in note 2(d) to Subchapter XIX of chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Baltzan, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395-3582. 

## Correction 

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         Notice of August 4, 2006, the USTR determined that Burkina Faso had met certain customs requirements under the AGOA. President Bush had by Proclamation 7853 previously designated Burkina Faso as a lesser developed beneficiary country for purposes of what was then Section 112(b)(3)(B) of the AGOA. U.S. Note 2(d) to Subchapter XIX of chapter 98 of the HTSUS provides that countries qualifying for designation as a lesser developed beneficiary country shall be enumerated therein. The                         **Federal Register**                         notice reflecting the USTR's determination in respect of Burkina Faso did not expressly modify that Note to include  Burkina Faso. Accordingly, Note 2(d) to subchapter XIX of chapter 98 of the HTSUS is modified by inserting “Burkina Faso” in alphabetical sequence in the list of countries.                     

Peter F. Allgeier, 

Acting United States Trade Representative. 

 [FR Doc. E9-5595 Filed 3-13-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3190-W9-P
**EXHIBIT 31.1**I, William A. Sears, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Noble Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:November 9, 2007   /s/ WILLIAM A. SEARS WilliamA. Sears  Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer  of Noble Corporation
#### Martin J. WELSH and Elsie N. Welsh, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15379.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

March 17, 1964.

*146Fred R. Becker, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Meyer Rothwacks, Martin B. Cowan, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.

Martin J. Welsh, Cleveland, Ohio, in pro. per.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and MILLER and CECIL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case, like Condit et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 329 F.2d 153 (C.A.6), involved the question as to the deductibility of expenditures incurred by taxpayer for tuition and books in attending night law school. Taxpayer had been employed by the Internal Revenue Service in the Intelligence Division. He graduated from the law school and was admitted to the bar in Ohio. Shortly thereafter he terminated his employment with the Internal Revenue Service to engage in the general practice of law.

The action in the District Court was to recover a refund of income taxes paid by the taxpayer on the ground that they were illegally assessed and collected. Trial by jury was waived and the District Judge heard the evidence.

The District Judge, in a memorandum opinion, analyzed the evidence and drew inferences therefrom. He found that taxpayer’s enrollment in law school was primarily to maintain or improve the skills required of him in his employment with the Internal Revenue Service and that the expenses he incurred were properly deductible as an ordinary or necessary business expense under Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. (26 U.S.C. § 162) Treasury Regulations on Income (1954 Code) Section 1.162-5.

The issue in this case was solely one of fact. In our opinion, there was substantial evidence to support the findings of fact of the District Judge. While he reached a different conclusion than the Tax Court in the Condit case, we cannot say that his findings of fact based on the evidence in the present case are clearly erroneous.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
#### Edna Stewart and Ester Stewart Barker, *Appellants,*v. Otmer F. Winter and Nellie P. Winter, *Appellees*

Division A.

Decision Filed March 9, 1928.

*William O. King,*for Appellants;

*Cook & Harris,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel 'for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and *429inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5227 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5227

 To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to 
   authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative 
  agreements with any of the management partners of the Boston Harbor 
       Islands National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2006

Mr. Delahunt (for himself, Mr. Markey, and Mr. McGovern) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to 
   authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative 
  agreements with any of the management partners of the Boston Harbor 
       Islands National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR BOSTON HARBOR ISLANDS NATIONAL 
              RECREATION AREA.

    Paragraph (3) of section 1029(d) of the Omnibus Parks and Public 
Lands Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 460kkk(d)(3)) is amended to 
read as follows:
            ``(3) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary may consult 
        and enter into one or more cooperative agreements with the 
        Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any political subdivision 
        thereof or with any partnership entity named in subsection 
        (e)(2), to acquire from and provide to the Commonwealth of 
        Massachusetts or its political subdivisions, or any such 
        partnership entity, goods and services to be used in the 
        cooperative management of lands within the recreation area, for 
        construction of park facilities, or any other purpose 
        consistent with the purposes of the recreation area as stated 
        in subsection (a), if the Secretary determines that 
        appropriations or other funds for that purpose are available 
        and that the cooperative agreement is in the best interests of 
        the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
      32




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
      the
      registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the registrant's
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the "Form
      10-QSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form
      10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the registrant.





Date:
      May 21, 2007





Amanasu
      Technologies Corporation





/s/
      Hideyuki Shiraishi





Hideyuki
      Shiraishi


CEO,
      CFO,
      CAO
First Amendment to The Progressive Corporation 2010 Equity Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 4.2 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION 
 2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE
PLAN 
 WHEREAS, The Progressive Corporation 2010 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) was approved by the Board
of Directors on January 29, 2010 and will be submitted to shareholders for approval at the Company’s upcoming Annual Meeting of Shareholders; and 
 WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable to amend the Plan; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is
hereby amended as follows: 
 1. The definition of the term “Performance Goals”, as set forth in Section 1(c) of
the Plan, is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 “Performance Goals” means the
performance goals selected and established by the Committee with respect to any Performance-Based Award, which shall be based on objective criteria relating to one or more of the following measures: 

(i) Profitability: 
  

	 	•	 	 combined ratio 


  

	 	•	 	 target combined ratio 


  

	 	•	 	 weighted combined ratio 


  

	 	•	 	 variation in combined ratio from a targeted combined ratio 



 

	 	•	 	 cohort combined ratio (the expected lifetime combined ratio for a group of policies commencing during a specified time period)



  

	 	•	 	 return on equity, or 


  

	 	•	 	 return on revenue; 


 (ii) Growth: 
  

	 	•	 	 policies in force 


  

	 	•	 	 vehicles insured 


  

	 	•	 	 drivers insured 


  

	 	•	 	 earned premiums 


  

	 	•	 	 earned premium per policy or per vehicle 


  

	 	•	 	 earned car years 


  

	 	•	 	 physical damage earned car years, or 


  

	 	•	 	 written premiums; and 


 (iii) Other: 
  

	 	•	 	 net income 


  

	 	•	 	 net income per share, or 


  

	 	•	 	 value of a share of Stock. 



Performance goals may be measured on a company-wide, subsidiary or business unit basis, or any combination thereof. Performance goals may reflect
absolute entity performance or a relative comparison of entity performance to the performance of a peer group of entities or other external measure. 
 2. Except as expressly modified hereby, the terms of the Plan shall be unchanged.