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



<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated  balance sheet of  MidAmerican  Energy  Company as of June 30,
1995, and the related  consolidated  statements of income and cash flows for the
six months  ended  June  30,  1995,  and is  qualified  in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      2,643,179
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    802,282
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         281,295
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       393,804
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 222,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,342,723
<COMMON>                                       801,424
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            428,476
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1,223,826
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          50,000
<PREFERRED>                                    89,955
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           1,398,539
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 102,300
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  72,528
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 1,405,575
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  4,342,723
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      804,975
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           32,323<F1>
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     673,981
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     673,981
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        130,994
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             22,248<F2>
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 153,242
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       56,152
<NET-INCOME>                                   64,767
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    4,563
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  60,204
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       60,204
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      40,111
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         171,391
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.60
<FN>
<F1>Tag 37 includes operating and nonoperating income taxes and is excluded
from operating expenses in Tag 39 and on the Consolidated Statement of Income.
<F2>Tag 41 includes $1,623,000 of Income from Discontinued Operations, net of
income taxes.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1.000
<CASH>                          7,028
<SECURITIES>                    26,006
<RECEIVABLES>                   6,002
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                39,036
<PP&E>                          1,759,736
<DEPRECIATION>                  61,182
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,835,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           20,861
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     11
<COMMON>                        31
<OTHER-SE>                      847,549
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,835,775
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                102,617
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   30,589
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                27,042
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              18,852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 26,134
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             26,134
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    26,134
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.52
        


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 17, 2017. 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, October 17, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18A0459. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC v. MAXWELL JONES et al..
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
STATE v. MIMS.

No. COA06-319.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 3, 2006

Certification Date October 23, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (04CRS68256, 04CRS68257)

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed without prejudice.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DANIEL KING

v.

HON. CHARLES B. BURR II, IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF JUDGE OF 

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

DELAWARE COUNTY

PETITION OF: DANIEL KING AND 

THOMAS GANNON

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 188 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2017, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Prohibition and the 

Application for Leave to File Preliminary Objections are DENIED. 

The Application for Relief Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 123, filed by Riverwatch 

Condominium Owners Association, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See King 

v. Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge, 2 MM 2017 (order dated February 

28, 2017) (issuing a rule on Petitioners “to show cause why they should not be barred 

from submitting any further filings in this Court relative to the civil action involving 

Riverwatch Condominium Owners Association, including any related orders concerning 

the awards of costs, as well as directives barring Thomas P. Gannon, Esquire, from 

representing Daniel King.”).

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
SEA RANCH OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. SEA RANCH II, INC.

No. 338P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

K. Edward Greene, Raleigh, Alyssa M. Chen, William S. Hoyle, Rocky Mount, for Sea Ranch Owners Asso.

*234Steven C. Frucci, Virginia Beach, VA, Bradford J. Lingg, for Sea Ranch II, Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 21st day of June 2006 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th day of December 2006 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."

Justices MARTIN and HUDSON recused.
# Council Regulation (EU) No 678/2013Show full title

Council Regulation (EU) No 678/2013 of 9 July 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the euro            in Latvia         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Regulation (EU) No 678/2013                     

# of 9 July 2013

# amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the euro in Latvia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 140(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank,

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro(1) provides for the substitution of the euro for the currencies of the Member States which fulfilled the necessary conditions                              for the adoption of the euro at the time when the Community entered the third stage of economic and monetary union.

(2)According to Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession, Latvia is a Member State with a derogation as defined in Article 139(1)                              of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(3)Pursuant to Council Decision 2013/387/EU of 9 July 2013 on the adoption by Latvia of the euro on 1 January 2014(2), Latvia fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro and the derogation in favour of Latvia is to be abrogated                              with effect from 1 January 2014.

(4)The introduction of the euro in Latvia requires the extension to Latvia of the existing provisions on the introduction of                              the euro set out in Regulation (EC) No 974/98.

(5)Latvia’s National euro Changeover Plan specifies that euro banknotes and coins should become legal tender in that Member State                              on the day of the introduction of the euro as its currency. Consequently, the euro adoption date and the cash changeover date                              should be 1 January 2014. No ‘phasing-out’ period should apply.

(6)The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 974/98 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 974/98 is amended by inserting the following row in the table between the entries for Cyprus                     and Luxembourg.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2014.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 July 2013.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

R. Šadžius                            

1

OJ L 139, 11.5.1998, p. 1.                           

2

See page 24 of this Official Journal.
1

NO. 03-14-00722-CR; 03-14-00723-CR; 03-14-00724-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS MARK FRUGE § APPELLANT VS. § THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM THE 331 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. D1-DC-13-200256, D1-DC-13-200257, AND D1-DC-13-200259 STATE'S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: The State of Texas respectfully moves for an extension of the deadline for filing the State’s brief and, in accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6 and 10.5(b), advises the Court as follows: (a) Following his convictions for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon; Aggravated Assault Against a Public Servant; and Aggravated Robbery with a Deadly ACCEPTED 03-14-00724-CR 7287599 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/8/2015 11:29:59 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2

Weapon, the appellant filed his notice of appeal in the above causes on November 3, 2014. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief on August 10, 2015. (c) The State’s brief is currently due on October 9, 2015

. (c) This request is that the deadline for filing the State’s brief be extended by 30 days

. (d) The number of previous extensions of time granted for submission of the State’s brief is: one. (e) The State relies upon the following facts to reasonably explain the need for an extension of the deadline: 1. During the period since this brief was filed, the attorney assigned to this case has been working on other pressing appellate matters and has not had sufficient time to prepare an adequate response to this brief. 2. This request is not made for the purpose of delay, but to ensure that the Court has a proper State’s brief to aid in the just disposition of the above cause.3

WHEREFORE, the State of Texas respectfully requests that the deadline for filing the State’s brief be extended to November 9, 2015. Respectfully submitted, ROSEMARY LEHMBERG District Attorney Travis County, Texas /s/ Matthew Foye Matthew Foye Assistant District Attorney State Bar No. 24043661 P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767 (512) 854-9400 Fax No. 854-4810 Matthew.Foye@traviscountytx.gov AppellateTCDA@traviscountytx.gov4 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i), I hereby certify, based upon the computer program used to generate this motion, that this motion contains 244 words, excluding words contained in those parts of the motion that Rule 9.4(i) exempts from inclusion in the word count. I certify, further, that this motion is printed in a conventional, 14-point typeface. /s/ Matthew Foye Matthew Foye Assistant District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on the 8th day of October, 2015, a true and correct copy of this motion was served, by U.S. mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or electronically through the electronic filing manager, to the Appellant’s attorney, Ariel Payan, Attorney at Law, 1012 Rio Grande, Austin, Texas 78701, arielpayan@hotmail.com

. /s/ Matthew Foye Matthew Foye Assistant District Attorney
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q/A AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-19-1997             MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          84,091                  66,509
<SECURITIES>                                         0                     767
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,583                  64,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,075                   3,691
<INVENTORY>                                     14,171                  13,895
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               170,838                 150,974
<PP&E>                                         953,923                 868,428
<DEPRECIATION>                                 283,768                 253,902
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 992,598               1,806,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          173,525                 194,831
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           902                     902
<OTHER-SE>                                     374,374                 322,575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   992,598               1,806,799
<SALES>                                         45,040                  44,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,123                 151,790
<CGS>                                           42,521                  42,689
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  156,970                 149,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   907                     605
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,985                   8,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,780)                 (4,370)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       993                    (28)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,645)                 (4,308)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  25,277                     533
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,632                 (3,775)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26                  (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26                  (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
ARMSTRONG v. QUALITY AUTO REPAIR.

No. 487P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Andrew R. Boyd, for Quality Auto Repair.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of February 2007 by Plaintiff for "Petition for Rehearing":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of May 2007."
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4




May 7, 2003




Mr. Robert Batinovich
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated
400 South El Camino Real, Suite 1100
San Mateo, CA 94402


RE: Supplemental Retirement Benefits


Dear Mr. Batinovich:

This letter supersedes and replaces that certain letter dated December 31, 2000,
setting forth the terms of your Supplemental Retirement Benefits. By signing
below, you acknowledge and agree that the letter has been amended to reflect the
termination of the Supplemental Employee Retirement Plan Trust (also known as
the Rabbi Trust).

The Company has approved an age 65 supplemental pension for you, with an annual
benefit equal to 3% of your highest average base salary and bonus for 3 out of
your last 10 years of employment with the Company prior to retirement (high 3),
multiplied by your number of years of service with the Company (not to exceed
22), with the annual annuity benefit not to exceed 100% of such high 3, subject
to an annual dollar cap of $565,000 ("Dollar Cap"). If benefits commence after
age 65, they will be increased using an interest rate of 6% per year between age
65 and the date benefits commence, but again subject to the Dollar Cap. This
benefit will be paid monthly for your life with a 10 year certain future.

At December 31, 2000, based on your 22 years of service and your highest average
compensation as of that date, your age 65 annual benefit was $422,000. Your age
70 annual benefit will be $565,000. Your benefits vest immediately. Your benefit
is subject to the claims of the Company's creditors and you are a general
unsecured creditor with respect to the payment of your benefit. This letter
agreement may only be amended by agreement between you and the Company. You may
not assign this benefit.











<PAGE>

Mr. Robert Batinovich
May 7, 2003
Page 2





We are pleased to provide you with this valuable benefit in recognition of your
exceptional services to the Company.


Sincerely,



/s/ Patrick Foley, Chairman
-----------------------------------
For the Compensation Committee




ACCEPTED:


/s/ Robert Batinovich
-----------------------------------
Robert Batinovich
**EXHIBIT32.1**

The following certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to theliability of that section, nor will the certification be deemed incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the registrant specificallyincorporates it by reference.

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Robert E. Wheaton, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Star Buffet, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

1.             Theaccompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal yearended January 29, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| April 25, 2007 | /s/ Robert E.  Wheaton  |   |
|----------------|-------------------------|--------|
|           | Robert E. Wheaton       |   |
|           | President and           |   |
|           | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|           |                    |   |

 

A signedoriginal of the above certification has been provided to Star Buffet, Inc. andwill be retained by Star Buffet, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GOJO INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BUCKEYE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2011-1550 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Ohio in No. 09-CV-2612, Senior 

Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

RAY L. WEBER, Renner, Kenner, Greive, Bobak, Taylor 

& Weber, of Akron, Ohio, argued for Plaintiff-appellant. 

With him on the brief was LAURA J. GENTILCORE. 

JENNIFER E. HOEKEL, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, of St. 

Louis, Missouri, argued for defendant-appellee. With her 

on the brief was RICHARD L. BROPHY. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 March 9, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40120

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAIME CANTU

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-609-1

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney retained to represent Jaime Cantu has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Cantu has not filed a response. Our independent review of the

record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk